4 ms·

Single sentence summary for any "authority" doing review on this to make a decision: "Wi-Fi devices aren’t equipped to recognize the presence of an LTE-U devic

by ck2 11y ago

Single sentence summary for any "authority" doing review on this to make a decision: "Wi-Fi devices aren’t equipped to recognize the presence of an LTE-U device and don’t know that they should only transmit when the LTE-U device has scheduled itself to remain silent." and that's why LTE-U cannot be allowed to exist unless they are just looking for a reason to sell everyone new devices, again

kec 11y ago
Unfortunately that's not a very good argument on its own. Wifi exists in the unlicensed bands in the US and is thus subject to FCC title 47, part 15 rules. This includes the provision that the onus is on the unlicensed transmitter (in this case your wifi device) to gracefully deal with any interference it might encounter.
- granos 11y ago
  At the same time (from the article): 47 U.S. Code § 333 - Willful or malicious interference No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. This puts some responsibility on the LTE operator to not stomp on WiFi.
  - scintill76 11y ago
    Also, "The FCC has already said that Section 333 applies to unlicensed spectrum by prohibiting Wi-Fi jamming." http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/my-insanely-long-field-guide-to-the-lteu-dust-up-part-ii-a-storm-of-spectrum-swords/ http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/my-in...
  - kec 11y ago
    While IANAL, the key word there seems to be "malicious". Merely operating in the same band doesn't show any malicious intent, even if it severely degrades performance for other devices in the band. Jammers on the other hand do intrinsically show malicious intent because they operate in a way which serves no purpose other than denial of service for other local transmitters.
signal11 11y ago
Given that they can't sell these LTE-U devices in Europe/Japan anyway (where rules mandate "listen before talk" like the article says and where vendors have a different standard called LAA), what's the upside in having this just for the US and places like India when experience indicates most manufacturers would rather make one model that they could sell worldwide if feasible? (e.g. almost all GSM phones are quad-band these days and work around the world)
- granos 11y ago
  The hardware may be identical and only the software different. They may be able to get away with fewer devices in congested areas if the throughput is better without Listen Before Talk.

by ck2 11y ago

kec 11y ago

Unfortunately that's not a very good argument on its own. Wifi exists in the unlicensed bands in the US and is thus subject to FCC title 47, part 15 rules. This includes the provision that the onus is on the unlicensed transmitter (in this case your wifi device) to gracefully deal with any interference it might encounter.

granos 11y ago
At the same time (from the article): 47 U.S. Code § 333 - Willful or malicious interference No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. This puts some responsibility on the LTE operator to not stomp on WiFi.
- scintill76 11y ago
  Also, "The FCC has already said that Section 333 applies to unlicensed spectrum by prohibiting Wi-Fi jamming." http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/my-insanely-long-field-guide-to-the-lteu-dust-up-part-ii-a-storm-of-spectrum-swords/ http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/my-in...
- kec 11y ago
  While IANAL, the key word there seems to be "malicious". Merely operating in the same band doesn't show any malicious intent, even if it severely degrades performance for other devices in the band. Jammers on the other hand do intrinsically show malicious intent because they operate in a way which serves no purpose other than denial of service for other local transmitters.

signal11 11y ago

Given that they can't sell these LTE-U devices in Europe/Japan anyway (where rules mandate "listen before talk" like the article says and where vendors have a different standard called LAA), what's the upside in having this just for the US and places like India when experience indicates most manufacturers would rather make one model that they could sell worldwide if feasible? (e.g. almost all GSM phones are quad-band these days and work around the world)

granos 11y ago
The hardware may be identical and only the software different. They may be able to get away with fewer devices in congested areas if the throughput is better without Listen Before Talk.