The Battle Between LTE and Wi-Fi May Have Left LTE-U Out In the Cold (networkworld.com) 60
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: Wireless spectrum is not infinite (Score:1, Funny)
What makes you think he ever crawls out of his basement?
Re: (Score:3)
*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
Re: (Score:1)
*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
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 deg
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe he meant 0.5kW input power for the LTE PA :) The output power is significantly less, of course.
Re: Wireless spectrum is not infinite (Score:2)
What's a monthly cap? Haven't seen such a thing in years.
Re: (Score:1)
Well aren't you a special little snowflake!
Re: Wireless spectrum is not infinite (Score:2)
No, just European.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Re:Wireless spectrum is not infinite (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:unlicense the entire spectrum (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 T
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that LTE-U uses a simple duty cycle access protocol. While this is compatible with the CSMA protocol used in WiFi (frame transmission will pause when LTE-U transmits, WiFi will go on when it is quiet), the rate controller in the WiFi node will likely think that the channel is terrible and reduce the rate to 1mbps. LAA has a better MAC protocol that avoids these issues. WiFi could probably be adapted to work with LTE-U as well, but with this technology it is not needed.
Why should my router have to change? It was there first. New technologies need to coexist with older ones that share the same space, or the new one will get ignored or rejected, and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should my router have to change? It was there first.
Why should my horse not shit in the street? Etc.
Anti-complaint complaint. (Score:2)
Hey, all you jerks who claim that "complaining accomplishes nothing"? YOU'RE WELCOME. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
dammit! stupid keyboard keys! why can't i make a simple edit to my comment?! this is bullshit! you're welcome in advance, slashdot. ;)
How is this a bad thing? (Score:5, Funny)
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?".....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed you are a coward. Not surprising.
You'll also notice that my post made no mention of my support for democratic or republican or any policies. Simply the undeniably appearance of the race.
You should consider not hiding behind AC if you feel so strongly about something.
Re: (Score:1)
What you also seem to not realize is that a lot of conservatives are very much not happy with the old guard of the republican party, and want change. And for better or for worse, Trump is forcing that change, which is welcomed by a large amount of the republicans
Wait, so the "Old Guard" are NOT misogynist racists?
Re: (Score:1)
Where does it end with you shills? Are they really paying you THAT much per post to inject political vitriol into every conversation on the internet? Fuck off.
What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
As designed (Score:2)
"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.
Carriers won (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Carriers won (Score:5, Insightful)
That's completely wrong on LTE-U. Part of the problem with the standard is that while the data channel is over the unlicensed bands the control channel is over licensed spectrum. Only companies who have licensed spectrum could have ever used LTE-U. I'm still looking at how LAA works, but LTE-U is a technology that only cell phone companies could use. Perhaps you are thinking about one of the other potential standards like MuLTEfire.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right and I am wrong. Sorry.
LAA is terrible, but LTE-U is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to cite? I'm sure all the people in town charging for wifi would love to know they are breaking the law.
Is nothing sacred? (Score:3)
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?
LBT (Score:2)
Ah, if only people voluntarily used that contention protocol.
Err... (Score:2)
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