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

141–150 of 184 posts

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

#141

Post by qb45 »

gst wrote: post #133
qb45 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a cool tech. If it really provides decent attenuation of WiFi without affecting other radios I think it may still take off in the future. There will be a point when 2.4GHz WiFi doesn't work anymore at all .

How do you get to this conclusion? The density is probably not going to get much higher than it is already, but the technology is going to continue to improve.

More high-def everything, people moving from cable TV to streaming, WiFi displays, ever growing software updates, realtime online games... Growing expectations may easily compensate for technological improvement.

Maybe wallpapers are too much pita, but if it came preinstalled in the walls and floors? Why not?

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

#142

Post by zyxley »

untog wrote: post #67
indlebe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average home user, sure, the ISP AP may be fine. But for the average reader of HN I suspect it would not be. I can't use an AP that does not allow me to fine-tune QoS and just tinker in general if packets are not flowing in the way that I desire.

I'd be interested to know how much the average HN user cares about this. I certainly don't. I'm not even entirely sure how fast my home internet connection is - it's certainly fast enough for me to stream Netflix etc as well as connect to a VPN for working from home. I don't really care about anything else. (not that my internet connection is always great - it isn't - but that lies with my internet provider, who I ha…

My benchmarks of speed at this point are basically:

- fast enough to run Netflix and have a work VPN going at the same time

- fast enough to run Netflix, download something on Steam, and have a work VPN going at the same time

- fast enough to run Netflix, download something on Steam, have Dropbox sync multiple GB to a new computer, and have a work VPN going at the same time

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

#143

Post by 0_00_0 »

dheera wrote: post #94

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.

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

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

#144

Post by 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

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

Full list of recent filing here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view;ECFSSESSION=Xp4PVvB...

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 "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.

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

#145

Post by saintgimp »

adventured wrote: post #103
ape4 wrote: post #70

Why do we have to keep saving the internet!

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 tax…

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.

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

#146

Post by magicalist »

tyc2021 wrote: post #144

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 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 t…

> 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.

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

#147

Post by jrochkind1 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #115
slavik81 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I was quite glad that the CRTC ruled against this practice in Canada. If telecoms want to run successful mobile television streaming businesses, they can start selling reasonable amounts of data with thei…

> If telecoms want to run successful mobile television streaming businesses, they can start selling reasonable amounts of data with their plans. First-party services fall in a different category; quite aside from net neutrality, that raises potential antitrust concerns. But partnering with third-party services, especially if offering to do so with arbitrary third-party services, seems far less problematic.

> First-party services fall in a different category; quite aside from net neutrality, that raises potential antitrust concerns.

Anti-trust law in the US is only relevant if the company has a monopoly.

That's exactly why net neutrality is important, and anti-trust law does not suffice. Because two competing ISP's both charging netflix to get the data you are already paying for to you, are not a monopoly.

(Notwithstanding that where I live Comcast is basically the only broadband option -- I still don't believe they have ever been legally determined to be a monopoly (yet?))

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

#148

Post by a-dub »

djrogers wrote: post #110
a-dub wrote: post #104

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

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 abo…

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?"

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

indlebe wrote: post #62
gst wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The average home user, sure, the ISP AP may be fine. But for the average reader of HN I suspect it would not be. I can't use an AP that does not allow me to fine-tune QoS and just tinker in general if packets are not flowing in the way that I desire.

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by wtallis »

boyaka wrote: post #138
gsteinb88 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

More capable than 2.4GHz? It's not so much about reflections, but going through solid objects. I imagined the larger wavelength of 2.4GHz dissipates less when travelling through solid objects, but this is hardly scientific. I also read stuff from internet searches that seemed to confirm this, but I don't remember nor have a link to a scientific explanation.

If you look up actual measurements of 2.4GHz vs 5GHz penetration through common household materials, it's clear that it makes far less difference than the conventional wisdom seems to indicate. I think a lot of it comes down to two major factors: pre-802.11ac devices being designed to prioritize 2.4GHz antenna performance over 5GHz, and people having their networks arranged to account for where the dead spots are on the 2.4GHz band and acting as though they should be in the same places for the 5GHz band.
Post reply on HN