81–90 of 184 posts
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.
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.
Congestion-wise it will probably look like yet another WiFi AP, or zillion of them if it gets deployed sufficiently widely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wifi works. People will not be very happy if you single-handedly break all their wifi-enabled things. If you gradually deploy your non-solution while upselling them the cool new product, they won't even notice until it's too late.
I'm still amazed how mostly everyone is praising T-Mobile for violating net neutrality with free music and video streaming. Instead of looking at the long-term effects (prices for other types of data will stay higher), everyone just looked at the short-term effects ("we get free video streaming _and_ they made data cheaper at the same time too").
On the more universally reviled end of the spectrum, you have companies attempting to charge servers to pass traffic to their (also paying) customers.
On the nearly universally acceptable end of the spectrum, you have the widespread use of CDNs, or the Netflix and YouTube caching servers that they give ISPs for free.
Somewhere in the middle you have wireless ISPs offering free bandwidth to their users for use with popular services. Hard to get customers to see that as a bad thing, especially if they already use those services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
How do you see the consumer services competing on anything but price, speed, and usage without breaking net neutrality? How do you see a "shipping" future for cell phone companies any different than the FedEx/UPS duopoly?
Sure, this will even the playing field for coverage, but it won't even it for anything else (customer services, device financing, cost, et al). Plus actual network costs have little relation to what companies can charge, since all cellular companies over-sell their network.
I'm sure with this there will be companies that offer terrible customer service, and price their offering dirt cheap. That's fine. But most consumers will want to find a happy medium between the quality of service Vs. the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still amazed how mostly everyone is praising T-Mobile for violating net neutrality with free music and video streaming. Instead of looking at the long-term effects (prices for other types of data will stay higher), everyone just looked at the short-term effects ("we get free video streaming _and_ they made data cheaper at the same time too").
T-Mobile is not violating NN with video streaming - they have a program where they'll essentially host your stuff (i.e., the Netflix suggestion to Comcast during their spat)... it's not discriminatory, in fact on the press meeting, someone asked if porn sites would be included and the answer was favorable. I'm not sure about their zero-rating of audio streaming.
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.
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.
Yeah, but now you and your neighbors have trouble using your phones because of the AP. It's a bad trade.
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.
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.)
"Let the market decide" doesn't work with commons. It's a tragedy, I tell you.
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…