Indoor LTE Wireless: Not To Be Overlooked At Mobile World Congress (networkworld.com)

alphadogg writes: Likely to get lost among the shiny new Android and Windows smartphones and tablets at this week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona are demonstrations of technology that could bring LTE indoors over the 3.5 GHz wireless spectrum band, previously the sole domain of the military and satellite providers. But the exploitation of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz band, which the FCC voted about a year ago to make available for shared wireless broadband use, is worth paying attention to, especially if you're an organization that could stand to deliver more oomph for your employees who rely on wireless devices to make and receive calls in the office. CBRS — backed by the likes of Intel and Google — could overcome some of the troubles people currently have making LTE calls from indoors, due to interference or weak signals that result from penetrating tough building materials.

Comments

Make no Mistake..

[TechyImmigrant]

This is a push to get you to pay for a wireless service at home when before you had wifi that is free.

Re:Make no Mistake..

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I'm already not paying for wireless, so fuck'em.

Like CB Radio?

[argee]

Way I understand it, the CBRS will allow you to get a little desktop box, connect to your friendly Cable Provider ISP and distribute LTE within your premises without a license. However, at this time, no phone made will work on this new CBRS band. It will be a future option.

Re:Like CB Radio?

[NatasRevol]

Ditto. It sucked on several levels though.

1. I was paying 2x for service - one to internet, one to phone
2. Dropped calls when left microcell coverage.
3. Required almost daily rebooting.

But when it worked, it worked well.

This solves exactly zero problems

[clonehappy]

We have already solved the issue of making and receiving cellular calls indoors, it's called Wi-Fi calling. Every serious operator, at least here in the US, has implemented it. And Wi-Fi is carrier agnostic, so it doesn't matter which network you subscribe to, your Wi-Fi will work. Why do we need to add proprietary boxes from different providers, etc. using different spectrum when Wi-Fi calling works and even makes the cellular network extenders obsolete?

This is a few steps backwards from what we already have, and I don't even see where there is any profit motive from the carriers to do this. Support more hardware and infrastructure for this system when what we have already works? I don't think so.

Citizens broadband radio service sounds like it'll be a public free for all, anyway. I'm not sure I want greedy telcos coming in and somehow trying to monetize it. These articles are just astroturfing.

Re:This solves exactly zero problems

[squiggleslash]

I wasn't aware that anyone other than T-Mobile supported it, but it's good to hear otherwise.

That said, Wi-fi calling means you need access to Wi-fi. Which generally means you need permission to access a specific AP. An advantage "Indoors LTE" might have is that you'd be automatically authenticated via the SIM card on any compatible AP, and presumably get your data routed via the carrier rather than tied to the hosts' IP block.

That seems worth doing, as right now roaming with Wi-fi is awkward in an environment in which most people don't want the liabilities and insecurity that goes with open APs.

Re:This solves exactly zero problems

[Phreakiture]

I wasn't aware that anyone other than T-Mobile supported it, but it's good to hear otherwise.

I can confirm firsthand that Sprint does, on some models of phone (I have a Samsung S4 Mini that supports it). Additionally, there is another carrier, Republic Wireless, (they are an MVNO) that bases their network model on having you connect to WiFi as much as possible and using it for everything when you are connected to it. There may be others.

That said, I will say it's got good and bad points. This is my personal experience:

The good: 1. Call establishment is instant. You tap the "talk" button and the other end starts ringing immediately (or as close to it as you can humanly tell), as opposed to the several seconds pause using the cellular networks. 2. Sound quality is solid, bordering on what you would expect from a landline - no flanging, no fluttering. 3. You can use it where there's no cell coverage. That was once a significant number of places with Sprint.

The bad: 1. handoff between APs is disabled during a call (or at least it seems to be). I have two APs in my house (same SSID, same subnet, different channels) and I have no idea how many dozens must be at my workplace (same type of configuration) and the signal will start to break up when I move from the coverage are of one AP top another, with it never actually handing off. 2. No HD voice. Sound quality is solid, as I said under "the good", but it is the pedestrian 300-3000 Hz (or thereabouts) frequency response rather than the nicer sounding alternative. 3. Just as you can't hand off from AP to AP, you also can't hand off from WiFi to cellular. Walk away from your WiFi and the call drops.

Re:CORRECTION

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Is she being paid for 40% of her day?

Re:ATT Uverse should creat a wifi phone call stand

[Shatrat]

That standard exists, it's called SIP. That's how the Uverse DSL modem is providing POTS service in the first place. From the DSL modem back to the voice switch it's all SIP. There's no technical reason AT&T couldn't make a Uverse Voice App for smart phones that would make SIP calls over their residential internet network. But....AT&T already sees it's landline business as undesired competition to it's wireless business, so don't hold your breath for that.

More WiFi not LTE

[DriveDog]

What we need are additional WiFi bands that work almost the same way as the 2.4 and 5GB bands.

It's really just about better reception

[maggard]

Malls suck. So do big office buildings. Also stadiums. As do any sort of "complex". At least they suck for cellular reception. Layer upon layer of steel flooring with few if any windows on the outside; dense core structures creating yet more RF shadows and reflections. All being served by exterior antennas at oblique angles.

Wifi can only augment service. It's too short range, too inefficient, and too balkanized. Indoors the access points are all stepping on top of each other and while Passport 2.0 will improve authentication it does nothing for handoffs and the other issues.

Indoor LTE promises to be spectrally efficient, relatively easy to deploy, and cost effective (each access point covers enough area/devices to be worth the cost/effort.) They're been widely seen as the solution for local cellular 'infill' - now they're going indoors.

Remember cell towers typically radiate downward at an angle, in an umbrella pattern. Therefore a locally dense area requires three or more millionish-US$-each towers around it. Or a thousand plus wifi access points, every 20m-50m, all requiring backhaul. Or a dozen ~US$50,000 indoor microsites offering LTE. They start to look very, very, attractive.

As to Wifi being removed from handsets, that is tremendously unlikely. Offloading heavy domestic data usage to another medium is still preferable. Corporate customers would flat out refuse any such handsets. And consumers would be rightfully incensed. Nobody (well, Verizon might try merely on their maximum-evil premise) would go for that.

VoLTE

[NotRightAway]

VoLTE takes advantage of the 800MHz band - which has much better building penetration characteristics - and it is already here. So it's really not surprising nobody cares about whatever this story is.