| |
Schleppy
Anon
2015-Jun-22 2:28 pm
Concerned about competition...While I have no doubt that LTE-U devices COULD interfere with established Wi-Fi bands, I seriously doubt anyone would release a consumer-grade, widespread product that would interfere with something as plentiful as Wi-Fi signals. Especially if the interference could hamper the LTE-U device as well.
This "warning" from NC&TW sounds more like the cable companies becoming afraid of upcoming competition. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2015-Jun-22 2:46 pm
except its not competition because the LTE will still be behind puny sub 10gb caps. |
|
| |
Works both waysRF is what it is. They will interfere with each other no matter what. |
|
| |
to Schleppy
Re: Concerned about competition...said by Schleppy :While I have no doubt that LTE-U devices COULD interfere with established Wi-Fi bands, I seriously doubt anyone would release a consumer-grade, widespread product that would interfere with something as plentiful as Wi-Fi signals. Especially if the interference could hamper the LTE-U device as well.
This "warning" from NC&TW sounds more like the cable companies becoming afraid of upcoming competition. This is something that FCC engineers should thoroughly investigate before allowing unlicensed rollout. But the FCC is full of lawyers and politicians that will make a poltical decision and not an engineering evaluation. |
|
| |
notfooled
Anon
2015-Jun-23 12:20 pm
Whenever a "trade" group speaks...When these people open their trap, I know something is wrong with this picture. As long as I don't live under a LTE tower, I doubt the sky will fall on my house or wireless network. I don't give a rats azz about free wifi or metro-wifi. That's why I pay Telco big bucks to supply me with 3G and LTE. |
|
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
to Schleppy
Re: Concerned about competition...In all honestly I think the cable industry is more concerned with the performance impact of Unlicensed LTE, than interference so bad as to make the network unusable. Regardless of how it's implemented it's going to take some spectrum and capacity away from 5 Ghz Wifi networks, even if they peacefully co-exist as planned.
It's like my home, my Wireless-AC speed has dropped a bit in recent months because optimum is giving out free wireless-AC routers and I live in an apartment complex. In my case it's the same carrier but the effect is the same. More wireless-AC routers in the same place mean that sometimes my router falls back to 40 Mhz channels because it detects enough networks to make 80 Mhz channels not feasible. My network hasn't stopped working but it's slowing down a bit. |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2015-Jun-22 3:30 pm
Unlicensed LTEAll the concerns seem pretty valid to me. A bit surprisingly the NCTA is actually attempting to protect consumers even if they have other motivations for doing so. |
|
pawpaw
join:2004-05-05
Asheville, NC |
pawpaw
Member
2015-Jun-22 3:43 pm
Land GrabThere is a land grab going on for u-wifi spots. When any interference happens, the squatters will run to the government for protection and money, on the basis that they need to be rewarded as "innovators". What about the children (schools)? |
|
Ubee E31U2V1
(Software) pfSense
Netgear WNR3500L
|
to IluvMoney
Re: Concerned about competition...said by IluvMoney:This is something that FCC engineers should thoroughly investigate before allowing unlicensed rollout. they should, but since its unlicensed bands, as long as the equipment stays within those bounds and still meets the rest of the FCCs criteria, then rollout will continue or start. the 2.4ghz spectrum is already crowded enough, but let it remain for consumer use, and keep commercial entities out of it, they can pay for spectrum. |
|
| |
to Yucca Servic
Re: Works both waysWhich is definitely cause for concern. There really seems to be little upside for consumers with what is being proposed. We are already locked to a very small portion of spectrum that is used by many devices. Throw in yet another signal type that causes interference and things aren't going to get better. I really haven't followed LTE-U but from the sounds of it the proposal is to use free spectrum to offload data so that certain parties can benefit. Basically it saves licensed spectrum holders money. quote:
Finally, it is striking that even if a version of LTE-U can be developed that effectively shares the unlicensed bands and does not harm Wi-Fi consumers, its use would be restricted to the small set of companies that control licensed spectrum. What this means is that LTE-U and LAA proponents not only threaten Wi-Fi and other unlicensed consumers, but have also actively worked to prevent these consumers from using LTE in unlicensed bands if they determine that its use would be as beneficial as proponents claim that it would be. Innovators, schools, unlicensed network operators, and individuals cannot choose to use LTE-U or LAA because the licensed carriers who back these technologies have made a conscious policy decision to prevent anyone
other than holders of licensed spectrum from using LTE-U or LAA.
It sounds like they are wanting to use the 5ghz band, so even if it doesn't cause wifi to stop working you'll still likely be competing for the same airtime. At some point 5ghz will probably end up as bad as 2.4ghz is right now. If you were against cable companies using the wifi band to offer wifi from your gateway or put up hotspots that interfere with your own connection, then I would say this is very similar. Both that and LTE-U take up free consumer bandwidth for paid services. |
|
|
 whfsdude
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC |
whfsdude
Premium Member
2015-Jun-22 4:13 pm
said by bman212121:It sounds like they are wanting to use the 5ghz band, so even if it doesn't cause wifi to stop working you'll still likely be competing for the same airtime. ^ this. 2.4ghz is unusable in any dense urban setting. I really dislike the idea of LTE-U mucking up this spectrum. If the cell carriers want to use 5ghz, they should deploy WiFi or get some roaming deals with WiFi operators. |
|
| |
to Schleppy
Re: Concerned about competition...Seriously. Cable is "worried" because the LTE operators, aka competition, could use that spectrum to compete with them. They could give a rats a$$ about the people. Like Comcast is cheering in our corner. They are correct, however that something like this could be very disruptive to hotspot or home users.
What they should do is put the 600 auction aside next year as FREE unlicensed spectrum for the American people and that would pretty much destroy the cozy monopoly the big 4 have had for decades. The problem: That would make sense.
You cant tell me in 10 years there couldn't be a technology to take advantage of it as they have already deployed whitespace in a few locations.
Also, since FCC decision on 5Ghz last year, the folks can start dialing up 5GHz power on certain channels so it can start getting some range to go with that speed--that is assuming you are not sitting on an area using doppler, etc. |
|
| |
Killa200
Premium Member
2015-Jun-22 4:49 pm
ReasoningI'm surprised it is just the cable industry groups balking, and not Telecom and FTTH as well.
This has nothing to do with "valid competition" as LTE internet is closer to satellite than it is modern dsl / cable / ftth. What it has a lot to do with, however, as every other customer calling and bitching that "their internet is broken, and its your fault XYZ company", when it is really a new onslaught of high power unlicensed band radios stomping over every wireless gateway and router in the area.
Remember, the average internet user isn't smart enough to distinguish between "internet is out" and "wireless channel is noisy". If Facebook and Netflix isn't loading, its their ISPs fault no matter if it isn't. |
|
|
gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA |
to pawpaw
Re: Land GrabYep they are squatting on unlicensed spectrum and want to keep it for their PAY TV service Cha-Ching profits over everyone and anything. |
|
| gaforces |
to Killa200
Re: Reasoningsaid by Killa200: its their ISPs fault no matter if it isn't Nope they blame the tech who tuned up their computer and de-virused 3 years ago first. He or she must have also misconfigured the router and modem. |
|
 chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH |
to Schleppy
Re: Concerned about competition...Verizon and AT&T they make there $ with data caps they definitely would get rid of wifi if they get the chance! |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
to elefante72
said by elefante72:What they should do is put the 600 auction aside next year as FREE unlicensed spectrum for the American people and that would pretty much destroy the cozy monopoly the big 4 have had for decades. The problem: That would make sense. I'm all for that. I'd love to have a 600MHz AP for distance use (cover an acre or two or ten) and use the 2.4/5GHz AP for indoor use. |
|
chip89
Premium Member
join:2012-07-05
Columbia Station, OH |
to Killa200
Re: ReasoningThat's because AT&T and Verizon know they could hurt wifi with this. That means people use more data which means more $ for Verizon and AT&T. |
|
 firephotoWe the people
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA |
AKA their Commercial use of Public WiFi might get interfered with..No care about their existing interference with the actual public's Wi-Fi... |
|
| |
fcc part 15cable wifi already degrades home wifi signals for many consumers since they decided to put them EVERYWHERE in a big city like NYC...
hopefully they have the good sense to keep the channel assignments consistent..
I doubt telcos are going to go ahead and release a VALUE ADDED (no EXTRA charge) wireless nework similar to what the cable industry has done-- and kill demand for the very profitable metered data plans...
to make matters more complicated, nyc wants to build its own (free to the public) wifi network.. when leveraging cable wifi could be a better idea... |
|
| |
to gaforces
Re: Reasoningsaid by gaforces:said by Killa200: its their ISPs fault no matter if it isn't Nope they blame the tech who tuned up their computer and de-virused 3 years ago first. He or she must have also misconfigured the router and modem. Oh, my apologies! Forgot about that first line of accusations, lol. |
|
| |
to Simba7
Re: Concerned about competition...said by Simba7:said by elefante72:What they should do is put the 600 auction aside next year as FREE unlicensed spectrum for the American people and that would pretty much destroy the cozy monopoly the big 4 have had for decades. The problem: That would make sense. I'm all for that. I'd love to have a 600MHz AP for distance use (cover an acre or two or ten) and use the 2.4/5GHz AP for indoor use. The problem with 600mhz is that it would propagate to far. People are having problems now competing with the access points on their block. Imagine if you had to compete with all the ones in a square mile or more. If someone puts a 600mhz AP on top of a hill they could get town wide. |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2015-Jun-22 9:03 pm
Public Wi-Fi?They are worried they will have no control over unlicensed airwaves? They are worried about the pay Wi-Fi they sell using customers routers and free airwaves. You get what you pay for. |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
2 edits |
to whfsdude
Re: Works both wayssaid by bman212121:Which is definitely cause for concern. said by whfsdude:^ this. 2.4ghz is unusable in any dense urban setting. totally agree that the spectrum that is sort of the public "CB" of the internet age, should NOT be polluted by the those BUSNESSES too cheap to buy spectrum. On the other hand, some commercial value (Wi-Fi equipment and software companies is already are already profiting handsomely. and it is convenient if technical issues like hand-offs, forwarding, and even billing is fairly standard, available, and reasonably transparent to the end users. I just don't want to see Wi-Fi space invaded by baby monitors, cheap phones, etc. as 900 MHZ was. depending on the FCC too use science (as required by numerous international treaties) to CAREFULLY studies the effects of allowing this. BTW people can send comments to the FCC and congress and the president and to each of the companies involved (as the show themselves) each honest/sincere contact counts as a huge percentage of public thought/outcry, and only takes a small effort. |
|
| |
Agreed!
It would probably never happen, but it seems like there is a possible middle ground that could fix a lot of the problems. Take the 2.4ghz band, and add one more channel above and below the current 1,6,11. License those out to anyone who wants to use it for business purposes, but don't grant them exclusive access. Then allow wifi devices to start picking up those two additional channels if they are available. Businesses would be able to obtain cheaper spectrum that wouldn't require a special radio to access it, and they wouldn't have to compete with residential users as those channels would not be available for unlicensed use.
It's possible that LTE-U could potentially offer something like that if the current LTE radios could tune it in, but they would still require them to get their own swath of spectrum that would be only used for commercial and not cut into the unlicensed bands. |
|
| |
to Killa200
Re: Reasoningsaid by Killa200:I'm surprised it is just the cable industry groups balking, and not Telecom and FTTH as well.
This has nothing to do with "valid competition" as LTE internet is closer to satellite than it is modern dsl / cable / ftth. What it has a lot to do with, however, as every other customer calling and bitching that "their internet is broken, and its your fault XYZ company", when it is really a new onslaught of high power unlicensed band radios stomping over every wireless gateway and router in the area. Telecoms want U-LTE bad. This is what is going to help their fixed LTE plans. This is 100% about stopping competition. LTE broadcast is coming and stopping this helps kill it off. Cable doesn't want an competition or innovation. It's bad enough with google fiber now. |
|
| |
flwpwr to Schleppy
Anon
2015-Jun-23 10:55 am
to Schleppy
Re: Concerned about competition...cordless phones? |
|
| |
to MovieLover76
5 ghz has been the exception in my condo complex (i'm the exception. The 2.4 ghz band is crowded otherwise... |
|
| compuguy |
to elefante72
said by elefante72:Also, since FCC decision on 5Ghz last year, the folks can start dialing up 5GHz power on certain channels so it can start getting some range to go with that speed--that is assuming you are not sitting on an area using doppler, etc. Link to this decision? |
|
| |
to smk11
Re: ReasoningI wouldn't call any current form of LTE a competitive threat to cable, as there just isn't enough bandwidth there in current spectral density. |
|
