4 ms·

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

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 for a subscription service, whereas WiFi is controlled by the consumer (though in practice each ISP ends up using WiFi).

homulilly 11y ago
considering 2.4ghz is basically unusable where i live this isn't really good news.
- camkego 11y ago
  This.
qb45 11y ago
> Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band I worry that it could make the 5G band look like 2.4G looks now. I too like the idea of a piece of spectrum used mainly by consumers or small businesses and not saturated by the big commercial gorillas. If today they are desperate enough to consider running their precious services on the wild unregulated bands then sooner or later they will be desperate enough to squeeze every last bit out of them. Another thing is that once they are allowed in and their bottom line starts to depend on WiFi bands, they will fight to the death to stay there forever and only grow.
- silverfox17 11y ago
  Where I live we have 2 WISPs - the 5GHz band already looks like the 2.4 band. This would potentially just wreck internet service for thousands of people.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Are the WISPs attaching WiFi APs to (or near) their antennas to provide service to the surrounding area? If they aren't, then -AIUI- 5GHz (and 40GHz) gear commonly used by WISPs is highly directional and requires somewhat careful alignment in order to work. (I've heard the term "pencil beam" thrown around to describe the antenna pattern.)
acqq 11y ago
My understanding is, just bad news: not only the LTE-U as it is now interferes with WiFi, it would also cause any phone connected to the WiFi to drain the battery faster, according to the papers. It surely should not be allowed until it's significantly improved.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
How is that good news?
mtgx 11y ago
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.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Well, some of us live in homes with rooms and walls, and so 5GHz is pretty useless.
  - gsteinb88 11y ago
    ...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.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Thanks. Maybe I'll give 5GHz another try.
    - boyaka 11y ago
      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.
      - wtallis 11y ago
        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.

homulilly 11y ago

considering 2.4ghz is basically unusable where i live this isn't really good news.

camkego 11y ago
This.

qb45 11y ago

> Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band I worry that it could make the 5G band look like 2.4G looks now. I too like the idea of a piece of spectrum used mainly by consumers or small businesses and not saturated by the big commercial gorillas. If today they are desperate enough to consider running their precious services on the wild unregulated bands then sooner or later they will be desperate enough to squeeze every last bit out of them. Another thing is that once they are allowed in and their bottom line starts to depend on WiFi bands, they will fight to the death to stay there forever and only grow.

silverfox17 11y ago
Where I live we have 2 WISPs - the 5GHz band already looks like the 2.4 band. This would potentially just wreck internet service for thousands of people.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Are the WISPs attaching WiFi APs to (or near) their antennas to provide service to the surrounding area? If they aren't, then -AIUI- 5GHz (and 40GHz) gear commonly used by WISPs is highly directional and requires somewhat careful alignment in order to work. (I've heard the term "pencil beam" thrown around to describe the antenna pattern.)

acqq 11y ago

My understanding is, just bad news: not only the LTE-U as it is now interferes with WiFi, it would also cause any phone connected to the WiFi to drain the battery faster, according to the papers. It surely should not be allowed until it's significantly improved.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

How is that good news?

mtgx 11y ago

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.

mirimir 11y ago
Well, some of us live in homes with rooms and walls, and so 5GHz is pretty useless.
- gsteinb88 11y ago
  ...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.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Thanks. Maybe I'll give 5GHz another try.
  - boyaka 11y ago
    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.
    - wtallis 11y ago
      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.