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
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.
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
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
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.
The nice thing about WiFi is that it's chips are easily configured. I know the FCC a few years ago wanted to kill it under pressure of corporate interests, but I have no problem shortening various timings on my OpenWRT box to the point I can drown out pretty much any non-WiFi channel.
This is indeed a very idiotic plan, this won't work well once the 5GHz band gets sufficiently saturated like the 2.4GHz band is right now. Let them use the 2.4GHz at 100mW or less if they don't want to pay for a license.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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
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!
I know I can move data at 2MBps on 802.11g I can't imagine single channel 802.11a would be slower unless there is interference on that channel too.
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?
Like I said. New spectrum allocation, new standards, new logos and licensing, and new products.
802.11fu probably.
My thought exactly. It seems kind of pointless to increase speed while increasingly limiting data per month.
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.
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.
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.