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

121–130 of 184 posts

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

#121

Post by hardwaresofton »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #23
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.

> 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.

Except Verizon can't upsell everyone, and if you're suggesting that they can lead a push to replace wifi as we know it today, I would definitely put money on that NOT happening.

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

#122

Post by shostack »

WorldMaker wrote: post #95
pavel_lishin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In addition to the other answers many of the ISPs provide their hardware on essentially a rental model. The benefit to that is that if you complain loud enough they'll replace it on their dime: the detriment is the same as with any rental though, typically they overcharge you versus what you would pay if you bought it yourself. Your mileage will probably vary, but I've certainly saved money in the long run owning my…

Another consideration is that often they will try to use the fact that you don't use their hardware as an excuse to not go further in troubleshooting since they "don't support 3rd party hardware."

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

#123

Post by hardwaresofton »

Pigo wrote: post #33
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.

Does this make you think that there's more going on with this story than meets the eye? It doesn't seem a giant like Big Red would be ignorant to something like this. They must have an end-game that's not being portrayed here. However unconcerned they seem to be towards bad PR, I'm surprised they'd risk being the reason iWhatever's aren't syncing.

Didn't really think there would be more to the story, though there very well could be. I think this is more the case of:

1. We made something awesome in labs (by bending/breaking some traditional rules)

2. It's X% faster than traditional connections/has all these properties, let's get to market ASAP

3. Oh, in the real world, this tech doesn't play nicely with other tech because of how we built it

4. Maybe we can just muscle it through?

If the scale were smaller (let's say, developers on some widely used open source standard/code), this would have been a simple case of "oops, that's a bit shit, better get back in the lab and try to figure out a way to not trample other broadcasts, but keep the speed boosts we were proud of".

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

#124

Post by gsteinb88 »

mirimir wrote: post #116
mtgx wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest Wi-Fi standard 802.11ac, which has been shipping for the past 2 years, already works only in the 5GHz band. There has been a push for Wi-Fi to work in the 5GHz band ever since the 802.11n years with the "dual-band" routers, mainly because the 2.4GHz band was getting too crowded/routers were interfering with each other through walls too easily.

Well, some of us live in homes with rooms and walls, and so 5GHz is pretty useless.

...5 GHz WiFi is more than capable of going through walls. In fact, 802.11ac has significant improvements to multipath rejection, meaning it should perform better in environments with many reflections than the protocols that offer 2.4GHz operation.

Which is not to say you may not have had a bad experience with 5 GHz routers/access points -- there are plenty of commercial APs that are frankly terribly designed.

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

#125

Post by kllrnohj »

mirimir wrote: post #63

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.

No, because wifi is a nice protocol. It waits for the channel to be clear before transmitting. It's not a matter of transmit power, it's a matter of collision & airtime.

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

#126

Post by mahouse »

logicallee wrote: post #66
wscott wrote: post #11

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.

>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 t…

Tip: just because you are getting downvotes does not mean you should remove or edit your comment. That's how this website is turning into a libertarian circlejerk.

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

#127

Post by legulere »

sithadmin wrote: post #27
gst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It just adds to the 2.4gHz channel congestion hell. Pretty much everywhere I've lived in the past 3 years, 2.4gHz has been nearly unusable.

I'm sad that wifi-blocking wallpaper seems to have never taken off:

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

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

#129

Post by mirimir »

gsteinb88 wrote: post #124
mirimir wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, some of us live in homes with rooms and walls, and so 5GHz is pretty useless.

...5 GHz WiFi is more than capable of going through walls. In fact, 802.11ac has significant improvements to multipath rejection, meaning it should perform better in environments with many reflections than the protocols that offer 2.4GHz operation. Which is not to say you may not have had a bad experience with 5 GHz routers/access points -- there are plenty of commercial APs that are frankly terribly designed.

Thanks. Maybe I'll give 5GHz another try.

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

#130

Post by timthorn »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3
dangerpowpow wrote: post #2

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

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…

> 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).

That was the shape of the cellular networks in the UK in the early days of mobile telephony, IIRC.

Post reply on HN