Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 184 posts

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

#51

Post by jhallenworld »

rupellohn wrote: post #6

Here is the actual study - it is an interesting read: 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

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).

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

#52

Post by 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.

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

#53

Post by gst »

indlebe wrote: post #48
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes things look more crowded, but unless people are actually using the Comcast WiFi it isn't actually adding to congestion. The periodic SSID beacons are an annoyance but they use negligible bandwidth. That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point.

>That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point. Because the hardware is often inferior to what you can pick up for ~$200 at a tech store, not to mention the lack of control you get with an ISP AP.

Regarding "inferior": It's fast enough and it doesn't crash (at least for me). That's probably "good enough" for most people to not care if there's a better solution.

"lack of control": The Comcast provided hardware gives me an IP via DHCP and I'm able to disable all those useless firewall features. So which features am I missing and why should I care about them?

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

#54

Post by 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.

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

#55

Post by 15155 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #45
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes things look more crowded, but unless people are actually using the Comcast WiFi it isn't actually adding to congestion. The periodic SSID beacons are an annoyance but they use negligible bandwidth. That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point.

> That said, don't ever use an ISP provided access point. Why not?

Because they're running software you do not control on what is generally sub-par hardware.

It's too cheap to get good, enterprise-grade equipment for home usage that will have no problems and allow you to turn all of the knobs.

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

#56

Post by sp332 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #18
rupellohn wrote: post #6

Here is the actual study - it is an interesting read: 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

Your link doesn't work by the way.

It didn't work for me either. Maybe it times out? This works, at least for now: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?strip=1&q=cach...

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

#57

Post by dangrossman »

codeka wrote: post #37
nerevarthelame wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

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 m…

> 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?

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

#58

Post by ploxiln »

gst wrote: post #20
mikecb wrote: post #13

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.

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

20 or so SSIDs beaconing adds up to a lot of airtime. Consider:

  * beacons are sent at a low "common" rate, perhaps 6mbps
  * beacons still include the preamble and the DIFS before that
  * 802.11n/ac get high bandwidth from aggregating multiple frames
So all those trivially small beacons take little bandwidth but a significant amount of airtime (which is a significant amount of potential bandwidth for faster clients with multiple frames to send in one aggregate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_coordination_funct...

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

#59

Post by smaddox »

ethbro wrote: post #16
hardwaresofton wrote: post #5

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.

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

Indeed; more generally, you're assuming people have any idea at all how the device in their hand connects to the internet, or even what the internet really is (it's a series of tubes!).

Most people live in a state of ignorant bliss.

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

#60

Post by sp332 »

guelo wrote: post #49

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

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.
Post reply on HN