
Google, Microsoft, Comcast Say Verizon’s New Cellular Tech Could Wreck Wi-Fi - walterbell
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/google-microsoft-comcast-say-verizon-s-new-cellular-tech-could-wreck-wi-fi
======
rupellohn
Here is the actual study - it is an interesting read:
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001078145](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001078145)

In a nutshell; the LTE transmission cycles on and off on a regular cadence
without sensing if the channel is clear. This tramples over the 802.11 frames
and results in higher utilization of the medium than that which is claimed by
Qualcomm

~~~
jhallenworld
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).

~~~
qb45
> Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band

I worry that it could make the 5G band look like 2.4G looks now. I too like
the idea of a piece of spectrum used mainly by consumers or small businesses
and not saturated by the big commercial gorillas. If today they are desperate
enough to consider running their precious services on the wild unregulated
bands then sooner or later they will be desperate enough to squeeze every last
bit out of them.

Another thing is that once they are allowed in and their bottom line starts to
depend on WiFi bands, they will fight to the death to stay there forever and
only grow.

~~~
silverfox17
Where I live we have 2 WISPs - the 5GHz band already looks like the 2.4 band.
This would potentially just wreck internet service for thousands of people.

~~~
simoncion
Are the WISPs attaching WiFi APs to (or near) their antennas to provide
service to the surrounding area?

If they _aren 't_, then -AIUI- 5GHz (and 40GHz) gear commonly used by WISPs is
_highly_ directional and requires somewhat careful alignment in order to work.
(I've heard the term "pencil beam" thrown around to describe the antenna
pattern.)

------
mikecb
That comcast is part of this coalition is hilarious. My apartment building is
flooded by xfinitywifi beacons, in addition to each subscribers private SSIDs.
Why they insist on turning on this functionality even in urban environments
boggles the mind.

~~~
dogma1138
Buy RF blocking window film if you are having so many issues.
[http://www.slt.co/Products/RFShieldingWindowFilm/RFWindowFil...](http://www.slt.co/Products/RFShieldingWindowFilm/RFWindowFilm-
SignalProtect-Clear.aspx)

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.

~~~
msh
But would that not risk breaking your cellular signal?

~~~
dogma1138
It didn't affect cell reception for me, you should be able to find something
that only works on 2.4> and leave lower bands alone.

LTE uses 2.5 but it's not that common 1900-1800 and 800-900 are still the most
commonly used cellular bands.

I also plugged only a single window if you check which walls/windows leak the
most and plug them it should allow cell reception through.

------
benlower
Verizon has paid many billions of dollars to license spectrum over the years.
It is in their business interest to charge customers $10 per GB of data while
offloading the traffic onto free spectrum. Qualcomm wants to sell millions of
new chips that will be required to power this new scenario.

It would be extremely unwise to let them push LTE-U thru without lots of
independent testing and analysis. 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.

~~~
qb45
> 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.

------
hardwaresofton
Sitting at about 0 worries. The second Verizon (or any other company's) new
wireless tech started to mess with WiFi in practice (as in, at the consumer
level), and was clearly attributable, they would instantly be hit with a giant
tidal wave of bad PR.

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

~~~
nerevarthelame
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.

~~~
codeka
Depends. If Google et al are right and they have studies which show it
degrades performance under certain conditions, then all it would take is one
class action to get off the ground.

People will pile on, and the evidence that Verizon knows their technology can
cause problems is already mounting. That they're pushing their products
through without reviews or certifications could be seen as evidence of
negligence or maliciousness.

~~~
dangrossman
> all it would take is one class action to get off the ground

What would be the cause of action? Why aren't the manufacturers of microwave
ovens sued under the same cause of action?

~~~
themacks
Microwaves _should_ be properly shielded. If your microwave is interfering
with your Wifi, its time for a new microwave.

------
acd
Celluar companies has payed to the state to have monopoly on certain air
frequencies for a number of years which brings in good profits. Now these
celluar companies want to sell paid services on the non licensed bands which
will make free services like Wifi slower.

Here is an analogy, its like a company wanting to sell paid access to a public
beach.

~~~
fennecfoxen
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.)

~~~
__jal
And guess what? At least in NYC, there are rules about where and for how long
those food vendors set up. (Not that all of them follow the rules, of course,
but not having your permit is rather costly, I understand.)

"Let the market decide" doesn't work with commons. It's a tragedy, I tell you.

~~~
zeveb
> not having your permit is rather costly

It sure was for Eric Garner…

------
pmontra
If LTE-U degrades WiFi won't it work in the other way too, WiFi degrading
LTE-U? If this is the case it's going to be difficult to use LTE-U inside or
close to homes, which are probably the most crowded areas and so the use case
of LTE-U. It could be a difficult product to sell.

~~~
JoshTriplett
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".

------
jostmey
So if Wi-Fi performance is hampered then we might have to rely more on
cellular data.

~~~
revelation
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.

~~~
datenwolf
[http://osmocom.org/](http://osmocom.org/)

------
tyc2021
I have been following this technology since FCC first call for response. Here
is the other side of the story:
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452)

EDIT: For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based
(NOT TRUE).

Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials to show
different results. IMHO, Qualcomm clearly has a better arguments.

Note that the link provided in the top comment by rupellohn is old. The latest
one, referred in the news link, is probably (there are multiple filings) this
one:
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001331188](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001331188)

Full list of recent filing here:
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view;ECFSSESSION=Xp4PVvB...](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view;ECFSSESSION=Xp4PVvBJlz3JDb0m0s222YmCyR5Vm17z96s5JnG41wHDnd18tPnP!-1926356709!-1673700907?name=15-105)

TL;DR: 1\. LTE-U has been proven to be a better neighbor to a WF AP than
another WiFi AP. In other words, two WiFi APs in the same room perform worse
than One WiFi AP and One LTE-U station.

2\. Fairness: 2 WiFi APs should each share each have 5% airtime according to
the standard, right? Wrong. Lab trials show one AP could take up to 80% +.
Refer to
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452)
"Wi-Fi/LTE-U Airtime Fairness". LTE-U always gives 50% Air time to its WiFi
neighbor.

3\. It is more of a political argument than a technological argument now. Note
that at this point LTE-U spec does not violate the regulation on unlicensed
spectrum.

DISCLAIMER: I don't work for Qualcomm. But it is easy to see who has a better
argument.

~~~
magicalist
> _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.

~~~
tyc2021
I stand corrected.

I confused the filing by Google with other WiFi supporters (which uses
simulation results). I have read through the all the filing months ago and
apology for the bad memory. I agree that Jindal and Breslin study is solid and
raised a valid concern. But they were all addressed in a response though.

Now I'd love to know how others think after reading Qualcomm's filing and not
just take on one side of the story.

~~~
xenadu02
The response was a vacuous non-response that didn't address any of the
technical points. If Qualcomm provided a detailed technical response I'd love
to see it.

~~~
tyc2021
What do you mean by technical?

Section 3 of Qualcomm's filing did respond to many concerns in either simple
analysis and/or lab tests. For example, the concern on the impact of rate
control algorithm in WiFi.

------
feld
Why does Verizon want LTE-U so badly? They were against _wifi calling_ until
recently! I thought their network was perfect :)

The only thing I can think of is that they don't have enough high-frequency
spectrum (1700/1800/2ghz+) which means lower theoretical data speeds.

------
ck2
Do not trust Verizon in the slightest.

They already violate their open/unlocked agreement for LTE and prevent other
LTE devices from coming on their network and prevent theirs from going on
other networks.

They are going to do whatever they can get away with.

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

~~~
ck2
Nope. 99% of them won't be allowed.

* with extreme exceptions there are some just so they can claim they meet federal guidelines

Now you might be able to trick activate an LTE sim for verizon on a verizon
phone and then get it to work on your phone but technically verizon doesn't
allow it

One day there is going to be a really large lawsuit about this, specifically
because it violates the spirit of LTE licensing if not the actual letter of
the law.

What the do to prevent their phones being taken to other carriers is even more
devious. To get around LTE portability requirements, they simply disable
specific LTE bands like the ones for T-Mobile, etc. So yeah you can put a
T-Mobile sim in there but the phone won't get any signal.

------
ape4
Why do we have to keep saving the internet!

~~~
adventured
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.

~~~
saintgimp
Um - in this case we're saving the internet (well, really radio spectrum that
people use to access the internet) from private corporations, not the
government. A totally free market sucks because there will never be a
properly-maintained commons. If it weren't for the government, maybe I'd bolt
my router to a 10-kilowatt transmitter so I can get my home wifi signal while
I'm grocery shopping. So what if it sucks for everyone else! The government
quite rightly regulates me in that area and says I can't do that.

If the internet as we know it today ever dies, I'm 80% sure it will be due to
private corporations screwing everyone to make an extra buck, not due to
government over-regulation.

~~~
im2w1l
I understand your point in general, but in this case you could probably solve
it by building a faraday home, and/or use a frequency that decays rapidly,
combined with repeaters around your home to counter _your_ signal suffering
decay.

------
goodmachine
Speculating gently that this 'new' tech is intended to enable the signalling
layer for LTE Direct (was FlashLinq) a quasi-P2P system, designed primarily
for retailers to push stuff at you, rather than create 'classic' P2P
filesharing networks. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on this topic
can join the dots...

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/259680/emerging_lte_direct_st...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/259680/emerging_lte_direct_standard_would_go_peer_to_peer_for_4g_mobile_location.html)

[https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/lte-direct-
wh...](https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/lte-direct-
whitepaper.pdf)

------
stevefeinstein
What does LTE-U do that you can't already do with wifi, and WiFi calling?
Seems like a solution looking for a problem. Or an evil conspiracy to cripple
the open, free, firmly established standard.

~~~
djrogers
> 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.

------
zw123456
Here is the link to the Qualcomm docs (LTE forum).
[http://www.lteuforum.org/documents.html](http://www.lteuforum.org/documents.html)
The interesting one I think is the SDL coexistence one. The good news is it is
restricted to the 5Ghz band which is the lesser used. It does interoperate
with the DCF backoff so in theory would be no worse than any other AP, but it
is understandable why it would make people nervous.

------
sg85
This article explains a few points that explains how LTE-U can co-exist
apparentely counteracting the research conclusions:
[http://hightechforum.org/can-lte-unlicensed-steamroll-wi-
fi/](http://hightechforum.org/can-lte-unlicensed-steamroll-wi-fi/)

------
neuromancer2701
Take the 600Mhz band that is going to be up for auction and make it unlicensed
explicitly for LTE.

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

------
mirimir
If your WiFi were getting stomped by LTE-U, would it help to get a high-power
AP from Ubiquiti etc? If so, maybe prices of such APs would drop as volume
increased. Also, maybe WiFi AP software could be tweaked to compete better
with LTE-U.

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

~~~
mirimir
Doh. Thanks.

So software tweaks, then. Yes?

~~~
simoncion
I gather that the only currently feasible software tweak you could add to WiFi
[0] would be to make it a substantially ruder radio neighbor by failing to
wait to transmit until its transmission channel is clear.

In that world, noone wins.

[0] Other, cooler schemes require that WiFi radio manufacturers put more
smarts into their radios. There are several 802.11 standards that would make
WiFi devices more performant in the face of interference, -probably- remove
the hassle of AP channel selection, and distribute relevant metadata about an
AP to clients _before_ they connect to aid the human in selection of the
proper network and the machines in determining if the client possesses -say-
credentials of some kind from a partner network that _this_ WiFi network will
honor. The benefit of adding stuff like this is pretty obvious to techies.
However, because most computer users are largely non-technical, it's
(apparently) impossible to make the business case to increase the unit cost of
one's WiFi products by $20 or so to cover the R&D costs. :(

------
thecosas
Wow, Qualcomm is getting desperate to have the next thing everyone will rely
on.

------
MikeNomad
Buy Spectrum. They ain't making any more of the stuff. -- Buck Rogers

------
guelo
I don't understand how LTE-U is useful for long-range when the unlicensed
spectrums have strict TX power limits.

~~~
sp332
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.

------
happycube
One would think Verizon had enough spectrum already. Sprint, sure, but
Verizon?

~~~
tshtf
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-...](http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-lte-
spectrum-do-verizon-att-t-mobile-and-sprint-have-and-wher)

------
a-dub
I think unlicensed spectrum should be reserved for use by the public.

~~~
djrogers
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'?

~~~
a-dub
Maybe that was a little unclear. If you're an individual and you don't buy
bands from the government, unlicensed spectrum is for you. If you're a utility
who does buy bands from the government, then spilling over into unlicensed
spectrum to boost your capability seems kinda bullshit to me.

Sure, it gets quite complicated when you start talking about customer operated
equipment that provides commercial service (xfinity is a good example) but
perhaps the critical test would be "is the transmitting equipment fully
managed and controlled by the individual?"

------
dheera
Considering 5 GHz doesn't really travel well through walls, is this a serious
concern? 5 GHz Wi-Fi typically requires an access point in every room.
Conversely, I imagine their cellular tech would really only improve the
outdoor cellular experience.

~~~
0_00_0
Do you live in a concrete bunker? I have one dual band AP for my entire house.

~~~
dheera
I live in a huge concrete building, yes ...

------
dangerpowpow
why is spectrum so expensive? only Goliath size corps can afford it.

~~~
Someone1234
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...

~~~
rayiner
So there is a lot of theoretical economic work on how to allocate limited
rival resources like spectrum (and water). The consensus is that the efficient
way to do it is auctions. I have quibbles with certain assumptions in that
research,[1] but for stuff like cellular spectrum (where the owner can achieve
extremely high utilization), auctioning to private companies is probably quite
close to efficient. It would be more efficient if we got rid of restrictions
on use and transfer.

Yes, that does mean that you end up with mega-corps providing your cellular
service. But the same is true for say retail. Amazon will eat the whole
industry. Physics as well as economics strongly favor mega-corps. Startups
have advantages, but specific and narrow ones.

[1] See [https://www.scribd.com/doc/292530059/Spectrum-Allocation-
Loc...](https://www.scribd.com/doc/292530059/Spectrum-Allocation-Local-Area-
Wireless)

~~~
gst
An alternative would be to split wireless companies into 1) infrastructure
companies and 2) companies that sell actual products to end users. The
infrastructure companies would be allowed to bid on limited shared resources
(= the spectrum), but a requirement for this would be that they would need to
provide fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to the resources to
other companies.

This is similar to the approach that some countries used when privatizing
railroad companies: Instead of creating a new private company that's
effectively a monopoly, they created one company that provides the
infrastructure and another company that runs the trains. This allowed new
private companies to enter the market, as they were allowed to use the
resources under the same conditions as the former monopoly.

------
wscott
Oh no, the unregulated spectrum is unregulated.

Not sure which side I am on. I don't like Verizon, but I don't really support
heavy regulation.

~~~
logicallee
>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.

------
sliverstorm
This tastes a little like "pull the ladder up behind you". WiFi operates on
unlicensed spectrum, and Google et al greatly benefit from it. Now someone
else wants to use the spectrum, and they shouldn't be allowed to? It's just
funny to me.

~~~
sp332
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.

