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

151–160 of 184 posts

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

#151

Post by tyc2021 »

magicalist wrote: post #146
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…

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.

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

#152

Post by xenadu02 »

tyc2021 wrote: post #151
magicalist wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 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.

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

#153

Post by wtallis »

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.

2.4GHz technology has already stopped improving. It's just getting more crowded as "the Internet of Things" trend gets more popular, flooding the 2.4GHz band with even more devices that—owing to their low-power design—often support only 802.11b or g and only at low rates, making them horrifically wasteful of airtime.

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

#154

Post by tyc2021 »

xenadu02 wrote: post #152
tyc2021 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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.

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

#155

Post by wtallis »

gst wrote: post #69
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 have quite a bit of networking knowledge and also used to work at an ISP for several years. Back then I wouldn't have used any router that didn't run my custom OpenWRT built with QoS settings, etc. But times have changed: On my old ADSL line QoS made a huge difference due to congestion (and the large buffer sizes). SSH was nearly unusable while uploading a file. My current Comcast line is so fast that I don't exper…

> "My current Comcast line is so fast that I don't experience any issues due to congestion - so how would I benefit from QoS?"

Are you sure you don't have a few hundred milliseconds of bufferbloat in your cable modem, as is the case for almost all modems out there?

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

#156

Post by wtallis »

jlarocco wrote: post #97
untog wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was going to say this, but you beat me to it. I think there are a lot of smart people on HN, but that doesn't mean they're all interested in all the same things. Tweaking wifi settings just seems like a waste of time to me, and boring to top it off. My interaction with my AP stopped at setting the ssid and passphrase.

Tweaking QoS settings is largely a waste of time nowadays, but only if your router is running an OS new enough to include modern self-tuning QoS algorithms (and preferably a community-maintained project like OpenWRT, because the commercial vendors screw up their deployment of said algorithms).

Even if you aren't going to be hacking on your router much, it still definitely pays to ensure you're using hackable hardware.

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

#157

Post by jrockway »

wtallis wrote: post #150
boyaka wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Precisely. The big problem with 5GHz's reputation is that most access points, by default, pick channels where only low power is allowed. Lower power than 2.4GHz == lower range than 2.4GHz.

Although I believe all channels are high-power channels now (as of late last year or early this year?), switching to one of the old high-power-allowed channels can help. 149 is recommended.

I have yet to see any scientific paper that says 5GHz penetrates structural elements worse than 2.4GHz. Rain, yes. Walls, no.

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

#158

Post by herf »

dogma1138 wrote: post #139
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.

Buy RF blocking window film if you are having so many issues. http://www.slt.co/Products/RFShieldingWindowFilm/RFWindowFil... 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…

Any way to tell if a particular window (say at a hotel) is using this film?

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

#159

Post by pconner »

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.

Some of us live in apartment complexes where a lot of APs are broadcasting in a small area, and the 3 non-overlapping channels in 2.4ghz are pretty limiting.

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

#160

Post by KnightHawk3 »

herf wrote: post #158
dogma1138 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy RF blocking window film if you are having so many issues. http://www.slt.co/Products/RFShieldingWindowFilm/RFWindowFil... 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…

Any way to tell if a particular window (say at a hotel) is using this film?

I would assume putting a bluetooth device on one side, then try and connect from the other.

Or look really close and hope you can see it.

Post reply on HN