Slashdot Mirror
The Battle Between LTE and Wi-Fi May Have Left LTE-U Out In the Cold (networkworld.com)
alphadogg quotes a report from Networkworld: After more than a year of rancor over whether it would hurt Wi-Fi, a technology that lets LTE networks use unlicensed spectrum may have already missed its window of opportunity. LTE-Unlicensed is designed to improve cellular service by tapping into some of the frequencies used by Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies. But almost as soon as LTE-U was proposed in late 2014, Wi-Fi supporters pounced. They charged that it would drown out Wi-Fi signals because LTE didn't know how to make room for other users. Now carriers may be getting ready to bypass LTE-U altogether in favor of another system, called LAA (Licensed Assisted Access), that does the same thing but with additional protections for Wi-Fi. The LAA standard is complete, and products are expected to start shipping later this year.
You fail at economics forever.
There's nothing like $HOME
It's why I just plug into an Ethernet port, and let everywhere else fight over the wifi conflicts.
*IF* it were to give cell phones more bandwidth.
we already have enough that the caps are artificial.
This will work to kill the competition to the mobile data plan.
Hope to use wifi at home or at a cafe? too bad, the 0.5kW transmitter in every corner "for more cell phone bandwidth" is poluting the 2.4 and 5Ghz to the point you can't connect to any wifi network.
because telcos will surely get an exception to transmit on 2.5 and 5Ghz with a lot more power than consumer devices, because, you know, they will have to "serve well thousands of consumers" so they can have "more bandwidth". ...nobody mention that with the current bandwidth you already can blow your monthly cap in half a day using 4G.
The article (or at teast the summary, I didn't rtfa obviously) contends that LTE-U has been left out in the cold, but the description of LAA sounds more like cell providers came up with a better solution that doesn't fuck over wi-fi. Sometimes things deserve to be left out in the cold.
Hey, all you jerks who claim that "complaining accomplishes nothing"? YOU'RE WELCOME. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
you mean monopoly economics
Nope. Just economics. Basic economic science. Educate yourself about the Tragedy of the Commons, for starters. It's exactly what it's about here.
There's nothing like $HOME
In the U.S., they charge outrageous sums for bandwidth. Other countries may be able to use LTE for home internet, but we sure as heck can't. At least our home networks can have reasonable speed and performance without being crippled by these guys.
*IF* it were to give cell phones more bandwidth.
we already have enough that the caps are artificial.
This will work to kill the competition to the mobile data plan.
Hope to use wifi at home or at a cafe? too bad, the 0.5kW transmitter in every corner "for more cell phone bandwidth" is poluting the 2.4 and 5Ghz to the point you can't connect to any wifi network.
because telcos will surely get an exception to transmit on 2.5 and 5Ghz with a lot more power than consumer devices, because, you know, they will have to "serve well thousands of consumers" so they can have "more bandwidth". ...nobody mention that with the current bandwidth you already can blow your monthly cap in half a day using 4G.
0.5kW??? really? I think not
,top notch amplifiers, lovely filters and all sorts and wioth those positions commandeering the higher ground.. they work rather well on a rather low wattage and that's how they are designed. so 0.5kW is blatant nonsense......revise your figures
A few facts:
For HSPA (Ericsson) towers transmit at a maximum of 60 watts (80 watt radios coming soon), phones only are capable of transmitting at +23 dbm (250 mW).
GSM phones can go up to 2 watts in the lower 900 MHz bands, 1 watt in the higher 1800 MHz bands.
For LTE, we use something called MIMO which involves two radios each transmitting at 40 Watts.
Keep in mind each user is only getting a very small fraction of this power allocated to them.
A cellular antenna, (65 degrees beamwidth, dual-band crosspole type) has a gain of approximately 15-17 dbI, whereas your cellphone antenna has a gain of approximatly zero as it is an omni for all intents and purposes.
You see unlike mobile phones the towers have rather good antennae
I don't really get the tone of this article. It seems to imply that it's not fair LTE-U isnt being used simply because it will ruin your WiFi connection.
LTE-U never had a hope in hell.
If you live in an apartment complex or even a crowded neighborhood, think about how many routers you can see from your laptop. The spectrum is already packed!
Bring in LTE-U, which just blasts out a 20MHz bandwidth signal without respecting other devices and your already flacky wifi connection just died.
Think of it like the Republican race.
802.11 devices are like the normal Republicans all in a room debating about some thing two to a table. Everyone can talk to their partner without raising their voice too much.
LTE-U is Donald Trump. He walks in and says , "Hey, wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world?".....
Was I the only one left thinking this is a good thing, despite the article seeming to nudge towards the opposite?
A new standard came along, some people pointed out a problem with it so it wasn't adopted and now a better standard has come along which is unaffected by those problems but retains the original benefits.
Ermmm, what's the problem?
Maybe he meant 0.5kW input power for the LTE PA :) The output power is significantly less, of course.
"Wi-Fi May Have Left LTE-U Out In the Cold "
I use WIFI in my warm cozy living-room while I use LTE outside in the cold.
At least until summer in a couple of months, then it will be warm outside with LTE as well.
I'm certain everyone is just chomping at a bit to blast white noise out onto the airwaves at their own (for decent distances) rather large expense.
What's a monthly cap? Haven't seen such a thing in years.
It's just an example of a limited resource that can end up unexploitable or underexploited if no regulation is in place. Make up all the fantasies you want from that, you seem to suck not only at economics, but also at physics and information theory.
There's nothing like $HOME
Less regulation could help though. Most of the radio spectrum is unused. Of course everything below 6GHz is allocated, but most of it is never used, or only rarely and in one location. This is especially true for governmental bands. Some way of spectrum sharing would allow vastly more efficient usage.
Shame it was left out in the cold as it ought to have died in a fire. Seriously, though, it looks like LAA is just a new name for the same bullshit spectrum grab. The think that by changing the name they can shed the their bad image, but it won't work, becuase the bad image was caused by the underlying bad reality, which cannot really be hidden.
LTE-U would have allowed yourphone to do 4G on unlicensed bands. That means you could legally make your own cell phone provider at home, and make your phone roam there for cheap calls.
LAA is a way for carriers to steal bandwidth from the public, without having to give anything back. They just squat on the public bandwidth for the actual data, but all control traffic is on licensed bands. This means you cannot set up a carrier without licensing.
The demise of LTE-U is very sad.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I am pretty sure you have the issue with physics. Do you not understand that to cover more than a small amount of space you need to push a decent amount of power into a transmitter?
Power isn't free.
Wireless spectrum is not infinite
Actually it is, having an upper bound at infrared (or microwaves if you see them as different from radio) but no lower bound. Not much help practically though as ELF doesn't work too well for wifi!
Well aren't you a special little snowflake!
The uses of public spectrum for comercial purposes is illegal. LTE-U, LAA... It doesn't matter. It's just a fancy way of trying to bedazzled people into forgetting that they are stealing public property.
It's why I just plug into an Ethernet port, and let everywhere else fight over the wifi conflicts.
Don't you get exhausted by carrying a roll of cable with you everywhere?
For HSPA (Ericsson) towers transmit at a maximum of 60 watts
When nazsco said "in every corner", I took that to mean literally in every corner of the coffee shop. In other words, they weren't talking about existing towers.
No, just European.
Are we not even allowed to have our own slivers of bandwidth for open, public, unlicensed access without the carriers coming in to shit all over it in a thinly veiled attempt to make Wi-Fi less robust and reliable so they can sell more LTE connections?
Stay the fuck off of the only bands the people have the right to operate our networks on. The carriers already bogart a huge chunk of public resource for profit, will they never be satisfied?
Actually the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, at least in theory
it could get a bit hazardous if we start using X=rays and gamma rays though.
What makes you think he ever crawls out of his basement?
Pedantic. The point still stands, it'll be used to gimp unlicensed network tech. 60 watts is still 120x more powerful than a SOHO AP limited to what 500mW? (at best)
It also doesn't matter how much of that power each user of a phone is getting so why you would even mention it seems intentionally misleading.
LTE-U was just a spectrum grab. It only used the unlicensed spectrum for bulk data, but required a small control channel in the licensed spectrum so that it could only be deployed by the big commercial players.
The plan was for the big telcos to fill up the unlicensed spectrum first, effectively jamming all the smaller WISPs and then if they didn't have enough unlicensed spectrum, it would revert to the spectrum they "own".
It was always just a plan to kill off the small competition. It's a good thing it died.
Ah, if only people voluntarily used that contention protocol.
Just a note: It's about coverage, not bandwidth. I'm not sure why anyone thinks its about bandwidth. This technology makes it easy for a mobile phone operator to allow its customers to add coverage to their own homes and offices without having to involve the FCC (or other local regulatory body) every single time.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You can always use powerline.
LAA is the new name for LTE-U, so umm... didn't the author have a clue? LWA is the new one as is the (currently) Qualcomm specific Multifire which is LAA without the LA.
-Charlie
https://s18.postimg.org/5938nh43d/P60229-033807.jpg
I use an $100 commercial antenna to provide internet to my friend who cannot afford it.
I spent the $20 extra to get one that didn't shit all over WiFi between here and there though.
I would expect everyone else to do the same.
Then this happened...
I've had neighbors ask me about the antenna, and want to buy one and cancel everything at home and just pay me for internet.
Then they want it blasted through the wall on Wi-Fi so it just works great everywhere.
If I just blanketed the neighborhood off the top of my TV antenna with the SSID
My WiFi WORKS
To a captive portal with a PayPal that said cancel your cable, I'm 1$ a day.
Everyone would try it, better to sell it to the neighbours instead of wasting it on torrents and tor.
If I could control the mobile phones in my neighborhood and offer them wifi supported discounted data too, but at a slightly higher rate, that would be awesome!
I think the wireless carriers see this too, and their latest generation of radios makes this a few key strokes away.
Allowing them to inch in on our spectrum is a bad idea.
educate yourself with anything but neoliberal shit -pro tip: subjective value- , that's exactly what it's about here