T-Mobile, Alcatel Lucent To Offer LTE That Uses Wi-Fi Spectrum Monday Mar 02 2015 14:49 EDT T-Mobile will be among the first carriers to utilized unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum to help supplement the company's LTE network, the company announced today. According to a press announcement by Alcatel Lucent, T-Mobile will be deploying Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) in 5 GHz spectrum sometime in 2016. Alcatel-Lucent says they'll soon begin LTE-U enabled small cell trials using Qualcomm's FSM99xx small cell chipsets, with commercial products expected in 2016. What this means for you is that carriers are starting to push into the 5 GHz airwaves shared with Wi-Fi, integrating licensed and unlicensed band operation to produce better device range, improved downstream speeds, and significantly improved upstream speeds. Not everybody is thrilled about this. As we noted recently, many Wi-Fi hardware vendors are concerned that far-more organized carrier technology won't play nice with ad-hoc consumer hotspot deployments, resulting in reduced Wi-Fi network performance. We're only just starting to see concerns raised about this now, but it should be a hot topic next year when the technology actually starts seeing deployment. For now, Alcatel Lucent would prefer it if you didn't think about that. "With Wireless Unified Networks, we are excited to be taking the important steps to transform and greatly enhance the user's wireless experience in the home, at work, and in dense venue networks by combining existing Wi-Fi and cellular networks into one high performance network," states the company. |
|
Tmobile needs a lower band.....below 1Ghz to improve coverage and gaps. They have 700Mhz spectrum in a few states but not nearly enough area. Sprint is growing 800Mhz rapidly and significantly outpacing Tmobiile with coverage and filling in gaps. Although it will be a while before Sprint can use 800 along Canada/Mexico borders. | |
| | |
Samual
Anon
2015-Mar-2 2:48 pm
Re: Tmobile needs a lower band...Why is this line repeated endlessly?
Is there a shred of evidence that T-Mo wants to invest in rural markets where lower frequency spectrum matters most? It would be nice if they had it for indoors coverage in urban markets but those holding out hope they'll expand into expensive rural markets are apt to be disappointed.
T-Mo's strategy is to cherry pick dense profitable markets and leave the rest of us to rot. My market is at the junction of three interstate highways, population 250,000+, and they have never had anything approaching acceptable coverage here. Drive 5 miles in any direction from downtown and you're either on EDGE or have no signal at all. They don't even let you roam on AT&T, despite the roaming agreement.
I love T-Mo and miss doing business with them but they're just not an option for anyone who is on the road around these parts. | |
| | |
2 recommendations |
Re: Tmobile needs a lower band...said by Samual :Why is this line repeated endlessly? Because the top 2 carriers were given low band spectrum for free, whereas Tmobile now has to pay BILLIONS for low band. | |
| | | |
to Samual
» www.tmonews.com/2015/02/ ··· of-2015/TMO is expanding heavily in 2015, not so much in POPs but geography. I can say in my area UNY, coverage has expanded greatly in the last year, outpacing Sprint by a mile. However, no way it approaches VZ/T coverage yet which has the low freq towers. Will see what the next auction brings. This announcement is going to be for near-field most likely. Think venues, commercial establishments, malls, parks. Commercial areas. However I can see a HSI providers getting in on the game and supplementing their income by carrying "cellular" traffic. Why not? It's cheap and plentiful (despite claims) and battery friendly. | |
| | | | |
KennyWest
Anon
2015-Mar-2 7:54 pm
Re: Tmobile needs a lower band...MSO partnerships to roam handsets on to the CableWiFi networks. TMO could expand like wildfire with that and Ruckus gear already allows it, which is who they use. | |
| | | | | | | | | SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2015-Mar-3 10:10 pm
Re: Tmobile needs a lower band...Definitely. I almost considered changing when moving to NW Arkansas. Where I went from having HSPA+ in my old area to EDGE on my old phone. Due to being around WiFi a lot, 2G coverage being good, and the fact T-Mobile has been better to me than other carriers, I decided against it and upgraded to an LTE phone. Surprise, surprise! I get LTE almost everywhere and it's faster than the big guys. I even get it in most of a small city up north where I have family, where Sprint has very slow 3G. I been impressed where I been seeing LTE show up. Anybody considering T-Mobile should definitely invest in an LTE phone because they are going straight from 2G to LTE in many areas, like they did around here. | |
|
| | |
to Samual
said by Samual :Is there a shred of evidence that T-Mo wants to invest in rural markets where lower frequency spectrum matters most? The main reason carriers are are so interested in lower frequency spectrum is because lower frequencies reach deeper into steel and concrete urban buildings. Urban environments is where the bulk of their subscribers and income come from, so that's where they are most interested in rolling it out. The longer reach for rural are just collateral benefits if the network operator rolls it out your way, which they might as they upgrade their network along highways as part of their regular coverage update and maintenance efforts. | |
| | | |
KennyWest to Samual
Anon
2015-Mar-2 7:51 pm
to Samual
Because he is paid by Sprint and Google. he repeats the same about both companies. when in fact Sprint couldn't even figure out how to get out of a wet paper bag. If we had an SEC like before they'd go after Sprint for claiming customers they don't have--- MVNOs like Straight Talk. And or Goo for hiding numbers and income as well. Pull a Martha on them. I'm sure Son would enjoy a few years in US prison. | |
| | | cb14 join:2013-02-04 Miami Beach, FL |
to Samual
While TMO has roaming agreements with "AT&T" these agreements cover only certain areas. In FL, there is, with an exception of one tiny area around the FL/GA state line, no TMO on "ATT" roaming at all. And trust me, TMO would love to let us roam on "ATT", because in large parts of FL, the "ATT" network was inherited from the good old AT&T wireless and it's excellent, in South FL surpassing Verizon. I do not see TMO expanding into large rural areas like Montana, the competitive disadvantage is way too big and they are better of concentrating on densely populated areas.I use Verizon prepaid for back up , get calls forwarded whenever out of TMO coverage, and I cannot even use up those $ 100.- plus tax prepaid minutes per year. So IO guess TMO coverage is not THAT bad at all. | |
| | | |
to Samual
said by Samual :Why is this line repeated endlessly? Because idiots move to exurbs and demand city services and whine about it. "Why do I only have a choice between Verizon and ATT?" "Why is my internet expensive?" | |
|
| Cobra11M join:2010-12-23 Mineral Wells, TX |
to existenz
tmobiles end of the year coverage map that they aim to have done this year is impressive though, if they can build it out | |
| | |
to existenz
So much this. T-Mobile is a joke in Iowa. Roaming with GPRS and EDGE is the best it gets. I think one or two of the largest markets have HSDPA. | |
|
WHT join:2010-03-26 Rosston, TX |
WHT
Member
2015-Mar-2 3:17 pm
Off topic, guysThis article is about T-Mobile using the Part 15 band to supplement their licensed bands. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Off topic, guysYeah, I don't like it.
unlicensed spectrum is already crunched as it is. | |
| | | michieru Premium Member join:2009-07-25 Denver, CO |
michieru
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 4:17 pm
Re: Off topic, guysThey will be limited to indoor deployments such as malls, stadiums and other close proximity locations. Are you suggesting they plan on using it on the tower? I doubt that. | |
| | | |
2 recommendations |
Re: Off topic, guysdon't these same places (malls, stadiums, etc.) already have wifi? | |
| | | | | |
KennyWest
Anon
2015-Mar-2 7:56 pm
Re: Off topic, guysNot all of them | |
| | | | | michieru Premium Member join:2009-07-25 Denver, CO |
to bigballer
Yes they do. I don't understand what is your concern here. A spectrum crunch was already created with the introduction of 802.11ac dumping and using 80mhz for customers who have 20Mbps/20Mbps WAN circuits and that's being generous.
Even if the carriers did bring LTE unlicensed into the mix they still require to follow the same power and antenna requirements as everyone else. The only difference here is that now users won't need to switch between networks, have the same roaming capability that LTE provides versus client side roaming for WiFi (meaning no dropped calls while moving between access points) and probably a battery boost since they only require one radio to run versus two on a cellphone.
In order for 5.8 to be efficient it will have to be small cell deployments. A cell has a lot less coverage than say a laptop which is the targeted demographic. This is why I am absolutely certain they won't deploy 5.8 on any tower (unless they are going into the WISP business).
Currently the largest deployment to my knowledge is a 20x20 setup. Meaning they will only utilize 40mhz(not including guard channels) of the total band in which ever location they decide to deploy. If all carriers followed this route and all 4 carriers used 40mhz you are still talking about 160mhz. Yes a large chunk of spectrum but nowhere near the 550mhz available.
The WiFi alliance will then say "Let's move to 60Ghz". With a mix of 5.8 and 2.4. It won't penetrate a dang thing but it will be good for apartments which is a tower of interference. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Off topic, guysMy concern is this: companies using unlicensed spectrum for their own [for profit] gain. unlicensed spectrum is just that: for the public to use and utilize primarily. Now we're having tmobile come in here and try to build a "network" around unlicensed spectrum? Meh, even though I'm a tmobile customer, tmobile should just focus on their 700 mhz deployment (band 12) right now and grab a chunk of that 600 mhz network. There's wifi everywhere-from walmart to the mall to libraries to my local commuter train station. I'm not sure why I would want tmobile to focus on this when they could be focusing on other, more important things. There's a good topic on wifi on NPR. In a sense, the abundance of wifi hotspots are making cell companies a bit less relevant in my mind, especially in dead zones where I know tmobile coverage can't penetrate with their mid-high frequency spectrum, but I know there's wifi at Target so it doesn't matter that much to me. » www.npr.org/blogs/alltec ··· -carrier | |
| | | | | | | michieru Premium Member join:2009-07-25 Denver, CO |
michieru
Premium Member
2015-Mar-5 9:33 pm
Re: Off topic, guysWISPs also use it for profit. So I don't understand this point.
I understand that WiFi is just about everywhere these days but let's be clear for one second. You are making calls, transferring data over a unsecured public medium which goes against the privacy advocates. You have locations with a abundance of users at any given time. If you offload all these customers over to WiFi with multiple devices streaming data, calling users and have true net neutrality scenario...you have no way of providing any QoS for outgoing calls. Calls will be garbled at congested areas and there is no way of fixing that without proper QoS implemented. The last thing I want to mention is that it's all based on discretion from the individuals running those public WiFi areas. While I do agree that most people won't have an issue with this, I do also see WiFi providers begin to make their services a pay as go scenario. Even if you had a $1.00 day pass you will also need to do it at every location that does this kind of issue. All of which I have mentioned are not technical but policy hurdles which won't change for WiFi.
So if I visit 10 locations within a month and each day I had to pay a dollar. Why would I ever do that when I can just pay $50 for a standard line and not worry about it? People enjoy convenience more than they do saving a few bucks.
I do agree though that T-mobile should focus on 700mhz and even more important is to have phones which are capable of band 12. | |
|
| | | | |
to bigballer
They do. Mostly in 2.4GHz band. And if it's in 5GHz none of them have anything higher than 40MHz channels.
There is 550MHz of unlicensed spectrum in 5GHz band. | |
|
| Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
to WHT
how do you think this will effect the WISP industry WHT? | |
|
2 edits
1 recommendation |
shmerl
Member
2015-Mar-2 3:36 pm
That's worrisomeWe don't want WiFi quality being ruined by carriers. | |
| | firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
Re: That's worrisomeMost wireless internet providers use public wifi. Ubiquiti, Motorola Canopy, pretty much any distance covering "wireless" networking equipment. | |
| | gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA |
to shmerl
I looked in my Wi-Fi radio logs, lots of "Wi-Fi interference on channels {X}, switching to channels {Y}." I see lots of att and Comcast wireless. Most of those are on 2.4 ghz. Around 5 pm the smart meters start transmitting with more interference. | |
|
mmay149q Premium Member join:2009-03-05 Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 3:39 pm
...Scenario 1: Friend comes to live with you at your house because him and his wife divorced, said friend has a phone that utilizes WiFi for LTE, since you and said friend are non-technical you don't understand why you have various weird issues with your WiFi and it not moving as quickly, chalk it up to friend always looking at porn, end of month comes, Comcast slaps you with $2,500 bill because said friend went way over your cap, said friend adamantly says over and over he didn't use much on his computer/laptop and his cell phone isn't on WiFi, months 2 comes, repeat with said bill...
Scenario 2: Relatives come in for vacation for a week or 2 and so you now have 10 more people at your house rather regularly, everyone is using a phone that supports LTE over WiFi, 2 weeks of relaxation and bliss come to a hault when you discover $5,000 Comcast Overage bill because of friends and family sucking up all your data, in addition internet runs like garbage during families stay cause all the new data being thrown over WiFi, you sell yourself on the corner to pay Comcast bill because you don't know how to get your news on a major media outlet like NBC, and you wouldn't see it there because Comcast owns NBC...
Scenario 3: You and your wife and 2 kids get brand new phones because y'all haven't used your upgrade in 3 years, after a month of everyone having their eyes being glued to their phone with all the new goodies they get to play with U-verse slaps you with $35,000 bill for overages as all 4 of your new phones now utilize WiFi via LTE and everyone thinks that their LTE is off the WiFi, family is forced to sell vehicles and huge garage sale to pay the bill, little Johnny has tooth ache that doesn't get taken care of and loses a tooth, little sally doesn't get to go to prom cause family can't afford it and father takes up alcohol addiction to fight stress and ends up being abusive father...
Ok so I know I was harsh in my scenarios, and they really aren't meant to be taken totally serious, some of that is just my dark humor, but really has no one else thought of this? Yes I know they say it's using "un-licensed" so more than likely your router would never even see it, but what if they decide to make it licensed? Or if a Firmware upgrade causes it to automatically connect to WiFi via LTE using your WiFi credentials if you already have them saved? And the company doesn't release this info to you? Am I the only one that see's these issues coming up later on down the road? Shouldn't we fight this unless the carriers go back to an unlimited data offering?
Shouldn't we rally together to pick a date we all cancel our plans after extensive research to all these new services and see which ones don't count against data and which do until we have unlimited data again? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like we should be demonstrating very heavily to investors that we can hurt their pocket books too if they want to f*ck around with ours every 3 months... That's the problem with all this talk of net neutrality and everything else, none of it really hurts investor pockets, we need less regulation and more back bone to cancel stuff along with others when it doesn't suit our needs.... | |
| | |
QuitMoaning
Anon
2015-Mar-2 4:16 pm
Re: ...Dude, LTE in the Unlicensed 5GHz spectrum isn't targeted for Home use. Quit bitching. It's to be deployed in Arenas, shopping malls, Stadiums, etc. It's for business and corporate indoor areas. | |
| | | mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2015-Mar-2 6:44 pm
Re: ...said by QuitMoaning :Dude, LTE in the Unlicensed 5GHz spectrum isn't targeted for Home use. Quit bitching. It's to be deployed in Arenas, shopping malls, Stadiums, etc. It's for business and corporate indoor areas. Link? | |
| | | | | | | | | mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2015-Mar-3 12:07 pm
Re: ...And? The local CableWifi transmits on 5.8GHz (as well as 2.4GHz) and covers almost every part of town. However, unlike this LTE proposal, you can see it and configure your network to work around it. With this proposed LTE network, your network will just stop working with no obvious cause (as you can't see it like you can with other WiFi networks). | |
| | | | | | ••••••••••••••
| | | |
to QuitMoaning
said by QuitMoaning :Dude, LTE in the Unlicensed 5GHz spectrum isn't targeted for Home use. Quit bitching. It's to be deployed in Arenas, shopping malls, Stadiums, etc. It's for business and corporate indoor areas. For now. Better believe this is going into the home with a microcell. | |
| | | | |
Re: ...Why would a carrier provide an LTE-U microcell for your home, if you already most likely have a kick ass WiFi and could use WiFi calling instead!? Your idea makes zero sense.
This is either for high ARPU enterprise or crowded commercial areas when you are away from your home connection. | |
|
| |
to mmay149q
Thing is, it's not really going to be Wifi. It's going to be an LTE connection using a sub-set of the 5ghz band space to a cellular base station acting as an endpoint of T-Mobile's cellular network. Meaning it is going to be completely independent of any other wifi connection that may be available.
If anything you should be rallying against your home broadband ISP for having a cap and charging overage fees. | |
| | | ••••
| |
UnnecessaryThe wireless carriers already have plenty of high band spectrum. If they want more capacity they only need to deploy more cell sites. Certainly AT&T and Verizon can afford it. T-Mobile really only needs low-band.
This high band unlicensed spectrum LTE could cause interference with other wifi networks purely for corporate gain. That's absolutely stupid. | |
|
| |
|
|