Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Promises Big LTE Boost From 5GHz Wi-Fi Frequencies (arstechnica.com)
"T-Mobile USA is ready to deploy a new LTE technology over the same 5GHz frequencies used by Wi-Fi following U.S. government approval of the first 'LTE-U' devices," reports Ars Technica. "The Federal Communications Commission today authorized the first LTE-U (LTE for unlicensed spectrum) devices after a controversial process designed to ensure that cellular network use of the 5GHz band won't interfere with Wi-Fi networks." From the report: LTE-U will help T-Mobile achieve its goal of offering gigabit LTE speeds, the carrier said. Verizon Wireless is also planning to use LTE-U. The company said in September that it is "eager to deploy" the technology and developed an equipment testing plan, but it's not clear when a Verizon deployment will happen. Cellular carriers in the US generally hold exclusive licenses to spectrum, while Wi-Fi operates in unlicensed frequencies. Anyone can operate in unlicensed spectrum without an FCC license as long as they use certified radio equipment and comply with power limits and other technical requirements. The plan to bring LTE to unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum set off an industry fight. LTE-U deployment plans drew opposition in 2015 from cable companies and the Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group that certifies equipment to make sure it doesn't interfere with other Wi-Fi equipment. Industry groups worked together to develop a "Coexistence Test Plan" to prevent interference, and the Wi-Fi Alliance said it's satisfied with the result even though the new testing is voluntary rather than required by the FCC.
And we need agreements on protocols for it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No
Lots of RC models use the 5.8ghz spectrum as their video transmitter band. Technically most of the power limits are 25mw, but that power output severely restricts range and is highly effected by objects such as trees. As a result people often run switchable transmitters that are 25/200/600mw and sometimes higher.
It's one thing to momentarily effect a localised wifi network. Another thing entirely if you are taking out someones phone calls.
Letting the carriers pollute 5Ghz unlicensed bands should have been killed. The carriers sit on massive amounts of licensed spectrum and do not deploy with it. Should be a use it or lose it deal. Of course Qualcomm came up with this idea so they could sell more chips.
Really hoping they do not try deploying in rural areas as most people there depend on WISPs for decent internet and not some crippled carrier "unlimited" data plan.
so this is a fake, fake 5G system?
I still want to know WHY? So you can watch an HD movie on your phone for 5 min til you get throttled for the month?
Latency can't be any better, surely error correction cancels any gains made.
There will be so much of interference with home wi-fi people will be forced to use mobile data. Or string cat-5 cables all over their homes to wired ethernet to every room.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
They keep the control channel on licensed spectrum, so that nobody can use the technology independently on unlicensed spectrum, but then offload the actual data to the bands used by Wifi, which is a better citizen on that spectrum and will get trampled by the more aggressive LTE-U protocol. Fuck that. The next iteration of the Wifi protocol needs to make sure that it takes precedence over LTE-U.
Yes, as LTE-U doesn't employ LBT (listen-before-talk). That said, the interference is likely to be of a similar magnitude as another Wi-Fi access point operating on the same channel.
Well.... Probably.
The 5 GHz band is full of users but WiFi uses a small subset up towards the top and they have 'verified' that these bands will receive minimal interference.
However, they are going to nuke the rest of the band with high power transmissions so the users of that bandwidth will have no choice but to move up and sit on the same channel as your WiFi.
It is perfect for T-Moble though, when the interference starts they will be able to show that it isn't their gear that is interfering.
Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.
-- Donald Trump
I think it would be great to give the spectrum to county governments to give mediocre internet for low population density areas. It should be cheaper than running cables anyway.
You give them too much credit. With spread spectrum frequency hopping it is not like crosstalk will present a major problem for indoor communications.
Of course it is. 5 GHz WiFi will be more fucked than 2.4 GHz is now.
Here's what happened. The "W-iFi Alliance" got the ol' wink wink, nudge nudge from telecoms reminding them that as 5 GHz gets taken over, it'll just create demand for new WiFi spectrum, standards, licensing, and products.
you say that like it's a bad thing. dump the wifi if it's not essential and use wires. it's better that way.
Like the banks have ground down the opposition and they happily charge 40$ late fee for being 1 dollar short or 1 day late, without anyone feeling upset.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wi-Fi at 5Ghz has barely enough range to work indoors. How high will T-mo be cranking up the power output to make 5Ghz work outdoors, and is T-mo Troll-In-Chief Legere ready to get sued by everyone who claims T-mo cell towers cause cancer?
How come they are using the WI-FI band instead of
the old analog television frequencies they were supposed to use for this very purpose?!
I just had to buy one to get band-12 support. Here comes another new phone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Unorganized individual home wi-fi owners and users on one size. Mega telecom companies with deep pockets full of government lobbyists, money and politicians on the other side. Both allowed to use the home wi-fi spectrum. You don't have to be Einstein to see what is going to happen.
So you don't think the FCC should side with the telecom companies carrying people's emergency calls vs. the home users posting shit on Facebook?
This plan looks to have 2 huge benefits: 1-Wiping out Wifi competition. 2-Not having to pay for a spectrum license.
So what are we getting to replace it then? I haven't seen any consumer gear that used anything other than 5ghz or 2.4ghz.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
These articles are light in details and anything involving LTE is mostly incomprehensible to those of us who aren't in the industry. However I did find one report that makes it look like they will be transmitting at 46dBm -- 40 watts -- in the "underutilized" 5GHz band. Such high power levels feel incompatible with the claim of coexistence and more like a move to drown out unlicensed WISPs.
Also, LTE-U seems to be designed to function only if the operator also owns a licensed LTE control channel. If this technology is actually capable of coexisting with ISM devices, why not open it up for everyone?
Can someone in the loop comment whether LTE-U is going to interfere with home and work wifi or not?
(PDF Link Warning) Since Wi-Fi devices are already widespread in the 5GHz unlicensed band, there is a need for newly deployed LTE-U Small Cell (SC) to coexist with the Wi-Fi ecosystem. Moreover, different LTE-U operators may occupy the same spectrum in the unlicensed band to provide data services to their users. Such an unplanned and unmanaged deployment of LTE-U SCs (femtocells, picocells) may result in excessive RF interference to the existing co-channel Wi-Fi and other operator LTE-U nodes in the vicinity. It is therefore critical for LTE-U SCs to choose the best operating channel while minimizing the interference caused to nearby Wi-Fi and LTE-U networks. However, there are scenarios where all available channels are occupied by Wi-Fi devices which forces LTE-U SC to operate on the same channel as Wi-Fi. WiFi devices do not back off to LTE-U unless its interference level is above the energy detection threshold (-62dBm over 20MHz). Without proper coexistence mechanisms, LTE-U transmissions could cause considerable interference on WiFi network relative to Wi-Fi transmissions.
tl;dr: Maybe
You don't need 5g for that.
No, not even a little. In fact I think they're doing their job dangerous wrong if they do. There are many options where telecom and home uses are not in opposition, and it's specifically the purpose of the FCC to work out those types of arrangements, ensuring that commercial, industrial, governmental and individual uses can coexist with significant interference in a shared radio environment.
Yeah like there is not a rape in the US every minute. but yeah look Muslim in Sweden. The crime rate in Chicago is about 10 time higher than in Sweden, but I suppose that this because of all the Muslim and refugees you have there.
Like I said. New spectrum allocation, new standards, new logos and licensing, and new products.
802.11fu probably.
And for those that have outdoor WiFi links in the band it may be killing those links.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Yep, 802.11fu is definitely going to be the killer solution.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The analog TV bands are not very suitable for high capacity demands. Most of those bands are already being claimed for other purposes as well. And digital TV still chews up quite a bit of those bands.
Lower frequencies also means bulkier antennas on the mobile devices - or less efficient antennas. So there's no real point in trying to reach for those bands.
Also see this allocation chart, even though it's a bit dated it's still interesting. It seems to have a segment between 11.7 and 12.2 GHz that is planned for Mobile use.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I don't even find the 5 Ghz that great for Wifi. many solid materials negatively affect the signal which in turn reduces speed. Unless T Mobile plans to install a boat load of towers I don't see this working well in the cities. I also could see some form of interference between the Wifi band and the new cellular one. Even if you can put on paper that they won't affect each other. We know that the electronics in some devices can be of poor quality and rejection these signals may not happen as well as planned.
Home internet slow? Try T-Mobile!
LOL
Maybe, depends on amplitude of the blowtorching towers; keeping in mind inverse square law. In addition, 5Ghz (and higher frequencies) don't penetrate solid objects nearly as well as 2.4Ghz and below. Yet paradoxically 5Ghz is better in a home/office environment over 2.4Ghz because the SNR is much better from lack surrounding interference.
Life is not for the lazy.
There is the option of fighting back. Use 5GHz wifi so much that it ruins telecom.
I recently redid all the low voltage in my house with cat6 and quad shielded rg6, 48 Ethernet drops 17 for phone(pots/voip) and 23 rg6
Wired is just fine by me.
Why are the Democrats importing Muslim rapists instead of helping real Muslim (and Christian!) refugees, mostly women and children?
Regarding rape "happening anyway", it's a question of numbers: consider, some Jews were dying even before Hitler started gassing them systematically.
Why are we now letting in these Muslim rapists? Why is it that 95% of all the "rapefugees" are single men trained in firearms and rape? Where are the women/children?
Oh, do you really think Chicago is America?
1) Chicago is a Democrat party shithole: they turned it into their own private plantation where they farm welfare minorities. In Shitcago, a black mother gets more money through welfare if her partner is in jail, vs if they both work full time! It's criminal what Democrats did there.
2) Chicago is where Obama is from. Enough said
3) Number one sanctuary city. Number one gun control city. Number one Democrat city.
Or anything solid really. If you have line-of-sight it works pretty well but get anything in the way, and you can have serious issues. I tried it for wireless HDMI and it wasn't able to maintain a solid signal over about 25 feet because there was an interior wall in between the transmitter and receiver.
Yes, as LTE-U doesn't employ LBT (listen-before-talk). That said, the interference is likely to be of a similar magnitude as another Wi-Fi access point operating on the same channel.
Just like the Motorola Canopy systems which completely trash the channels they operate on?
Some ISPs deployed Canopy just to block WISPs which became amusing when some WISPs deployed Ubiquiti Airmax systems which blocked Canopy.