Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi

Your link doesn't work by the way.

Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band, not 2.4 GHz. You would think that it would be easier to put micro cells in the home gateways (using the bands they already own) vs. rolling out a new capabilities on the 5 GHz band in the client (I mean won't they have to wait for Apple/Android to switch to a new generation of chips?).

I guess the bad feeling is that the unlicensed bands would be used for a subscription service, whereas WiFi is controlled by the consumer (though in practice each ISP ends up using WiFi).

I think the worst thing are the 802.11 frame errors that results.

I would assume that the bandwidth used by those beacons is pretty small and negligible when compared to the total available bandwidth.

I'm actually torn on this. I mean, I like that they are trying to push for wifi everywhere. But I kind of thing they should restrict it to certain businesses (Malls, pizza joints, etc) and not residential. I don't ever find myself without wifi at home unless the entire freaking neighborhood is out too (common with Comcast).

Buy RF blocking window film if you are having so many issues. http://www.slt.co/Products/RFShieldingWindowFilm/RFWindowFil...

There's also a wallpaper (and even paint) version of this which isn't terrible expensive if you are living in an apartment building with exterior dry walls instead of concrete.

This is pretty much the "civilian" version of stuff government agencies use to RF proof undercover sites which could not be fitted with active jamming, it works extremely well.

I have one in the bedroom put it on because BT set up one of their metro wifi towers in line of sight of the window, it also blocks all the other wifi SSID's from outside.

> Even then there is a case to be made for keeping some spectrum 'open' and unlicensed lest we see it all end up owned by a handful of corporations.

I think this is the important point. Let cell carriers in and they will subscribe as many people as necessary to fill the available bandwidth. After all, that's pretty much what they are paid for.

It's like road congestion - the amount of suffering depends on people's tolerance to endure suffering, not on the amount of available resource. There will always be more people willing to watch lolcat videos on their phones if they don't stutter too badly.

Keeping some spectrum aside from big operators allows at least small LANs to operate reasonably, while opening it to them may easily end up bringing suffering to everyone.

You're assuming people understand there's a limited amount of bandwidth available in a given amount of wireless spectrum.

And what if it's not really clearly attributable? Imagine if there are only problems in areas with particularly high densities of LTE-U users. And even then, the problems could be sporadic, resulting in occasional wifi disconnects, or generally slower speeds. Wifi service wouldn't be "single-handedly broken," but service quality would definitely be degraded. And consumers won't be able to explain or prove why it's happening, so they aren't likely to get out their torches and pitchforks.

> Wifi works. People will not be very happy if you single-handedly break all their wifi-enabled things.

If you gradually deploy your non-solution while upselling them the cool new product, they won't even notice until it's too late.

Does this make you think that there's more going on with this story than meets the eye? It doesn't seem a giant like Big Red would be ignorant to something like this. They must have an end-game that's not being portrayed here. However unconcerned they seem to be towards bad PR, I'm surprised they'd risk being the reason iWhatever's aren't syncing.

I'd say it's more like a street food vendor setting up a stall on a public sidewalk. Sometimes that's really convenient for both of you and it's exactly what you want, and sometimes the area is too congested so he's just in your way and it's super obnoxious. (And obviously it makes a big difference whether you're out in the suburbs or you're just off Times Square.)

Depends on wifi's reaction to what amounts to noise. Given a polite protocol that checks before sending, and a protocol that rudely blasts out a signal without checking, the latter will "win".

LTE-U surely won't be at a disadvantage to WiFi because it's designed with WiFi in mind.

Congestion-wise it will probably look like yet another WiFi AP, or zillion of them if it gets deployed sufficiently widely.

That can not happen.

Cellular data is not another dumb pipe, it's data transmission grafted with duct tape onto GSM et al., which are ridiculously centralized and proprietary services. There are no open source implementations, no open source hardware, certainly no open source drivers. Even if there were, you would be at the mercy of whoever operates the base station.

> For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based, whereas Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials.

I find it ironic that you've been "following this technology", have quick access to Qualcomm filing links, are happy to fill in details, but couldn't be bothered to even skim Google's filing.

The Jindal and Breslin study is well written and understandable. I'd suggest reading it since you seem invested in the topic.

So if I buy an unlocked LTE device from somewhere, I cannot use it on verizon?

I just assume evil intentions whenever one of the major carriers is involved in a dispute. I don't know what's in their hearts and minds in situations like this, but I know their history, and to trust an entity that has been abusive to consumers for decades to have good intentions would be silly.

I don't necessarily think Google or (gods forbid) Comcast are above criticism, but in this case Verizon is wanting to sell the commons back to us. This is akin to Nestle saying water is not a human right, for a digital society.

Because the Internet was the first - and so far only - global free or mostly free market that has ever existed. It came of age at a time in which every major economy is highly regulated, rigid and bureaucratic. By design it came into this world with: free speech and expression, the ability to create and start things at will without permission (no little bureaucrat to get approval from first), and had little to no taxation placed on top of it for a long time (even if eg in the US those sales taxes were supposed to be paid anyway). The powers that be have had to work for two decades to try to cripple it to strip that very high degree of freedom away and acquire the control they want over it (whether for data espionage purposes, or control of commerce, or control of speech for social purposes, or taxation et al). Most governments were caught entirely off-guard with the speed at which the Web emerged.

Any time large bureaucracies run into a free market, they inevitably try to kill or regulate it (whether for the benefit of entrenched companies, or for state control purposes, or out of misguided nanny-state protectionism). There are few nations across the globe that haven't followed the same increasing regulation / control path with regards to the Internet, to one degree or another.

> What does LTE-U do that you can't already do with wifi, and WiFi calling?

It gives the telcos a way to measure and control your access to their network and services so they can bill you for it. Wifi calling offloads everything but the actual phone call to a 3rd party (i.e. not Verizon) so Verizon can't keep their fingers in the pie.

I believe some over the air TV still goes over the 600Mhz band.

Yeah, but now you and your neighbors have trouble using your phones because of the AP. It's a bad trade.

Higher powered APs don't help transmissions from the client which face the same interference.

No, because wifi is a nice protocol. It waits for the channel to be clear before transmitting. It's not a matter of transmit power, it's a matter of collision & airtime.

It's not about long range. It's about getting more usable spectrum in crowded areas, or areas where the carrier failed to win a bid for sufficient licensed spectrum.

This was my thought as well. One of the big things all the carriers promote is the speeds of their networks which is directly related to spectrum licenses which is directly related to the amount of capacity these networks have.

Verizon has huge chucks of spectrum licenses already to work with: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Wireless#Radio_frequen...)

Are you aware that Sprint has 40 MHz of spectrum in 90 of the top 100 markets? That's far more than any other provider.

It's entirely Sprint's fault for not building up a reliable network (of course it's in the 2.5 GHz band) on what the FCC has given them.

Edit: Maps of the relative amount of spectrum for U.S. LTE providers is here (Sprint leads the way):

http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-...

For the public - interesting stance there. Your home Wifi connects to a private network, and presumably an ISP - what makes that dramatically different from this with respect to 'public' use?

A 'public' wifi hotspot is either run by, or connects to, an ISP. What's the difference there?

LTE-U will be used by the 'public' to access an ISP (that happens to be a cell phone company). By your standard, would all of the above be disallowed as they run through a company network to get to the Internet, or would they all be allowed as they are being used by the 'public'?

Do you live in a concrete bunker? I have one dual band AP for my entire house.

Because physics doesn't like startups I guess...

Or to phase that another way: There is a lot of spectrum. But very little spectrum that is suitable for mobile phone usage. When a resource is finite and valuable, it gets expensive.

If you want a "real" solution that would allow startups to play in the ballpit? Pass new national laws which split the cellular companies into two organisations, one that offers consumer services, and another which exists to maintain/install/upgrade the physical cellular network (and who then resells access).

It actually makes little sense to have competing and exclusive cellular infrastructure. The infrastructure should just be like a public resource, like a road, and the cellphone companies should be like shipping companies, utilising a public resource (the road) to sell a service (shipping stuff).

I'd be all for the government using eminent domain to seize every single cellphone tower in the country, and then reselling access to them to every cell phone company equally. But it isn't very capitalist...

you answered your own question! it's to keep the bar high so only the Goliath can play

because there is only one and certain parts of it can be monetized to great affect? you can get licensed spectrum in a point to point fashion for the cost of a modest used car, in some places.

Most of the usable spectrum is being wasted on stupid junk like navigation, military and police who are using ancient, inefficient technologies. The bandwidth-specific value we're getting from the ISM bands dwarf nearly all other uses.

There would suddenly appear to be huge amounts of available spectrum if the authorities would just yank bands from the most useless legacy allocations and auction them off.

It's unregulated, or it is more means that it's publicly shared.

Truly unregulated just mean that everyone is entitled to screw everyone else, that's hardly anyone's intention.

Unlicensed doesn't mean unregulated. The unlicensed spectrum is absolutely regulated. For instance, jamming unlicensed frequencies is illegal. Also, the unlicensed bands have power limits.

It's unlicensed/unused spectrum. Not unregulated.

The FCC still maintains ultimate regulatory oversight. And if LTE-U does cause issues with WiFi then it seems like something that makes sense to be regulated appropriately.

>Not sure which side I am on

I'll tell you! (It's clear to me what side you're on.) You do really support heavy regulation, and you don't think some guy with a cheap and crappy device in the vicinity should be able to disrupt your cell phone reception, FM radio, the GPS wherever you are trying to figure out your location, or, yes, wifi. Likewise you don't want to have to drive from California to Boston because it's too dangerous to get in an airplane with all the unregulated recreational drones in the airspace. You want the radio spectrum, class A airspace, vehicle and factory emissions, and a bunch of other stuff to be heavily regulated. (What these things have in common I'll leave as an exercise.)

EDIT: this is at -1 but it's true. I'm leaving it. I guarantee that the guy is for heavy regulation and doesn't want me disrupting his cell phone, GPS, or wifi due to crappy devices that do not even give me any benefit but just ignore regulation / or there isn't any. he enjoys the benefits and is for them. I guarantee it.

The FCC prevents devices that knowingly cause interference. I think this is an argument that the tech should be banned because they can prove ahead of time that it will interfere with other devices.