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.
Giving it all away so cell phones can have more bandwidth is a fool's errand.
Licensing is a tool for big companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Google to create artificial barriers to entry and keep out competitors. The same is true for local TV and radio stations, which enjoy a government-enforced oligopoly. The lack of competition is bad for consumers. The best solution is to unlicense the entire spectrum and allow anyone to use radio bands as they see fit. Consumers will benefit from increased competition and lower prices. Access to more frequencies will increase bandwidth, probably removing the need for data caps while providing faster speeds. Unlicensing the entire radio spectrum would be a great move for better service, lower costs, and new technologies.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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