Sign in / up

back to article LTE-U vs. WiFi fight gets closer to a settlement

FCC filings by Broadcom reveal the chip-maker is still feeling bullish about the controversial LTE-U (LTE-Unlicensed) push. In a world of squeezed spectrum, US carriers are keenly watching the development of LTE-U, because it would let them borrow Wi-Fi frequencies if they're not being used. That idea is controversial because …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. David Roberts

    Still not clear

    Is the issue that a Wifi device that starts up at maximum output can disrupt an LTE-U signal which is below the wifi threshold for "being used"?

    If so, what level does LTE-U want?

    Would reducing the threshold significantly reduce the density of Wifi devices supportable in a given area? Or what?

    0 0 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trying to avoid building masts?

    The whole point of a cellular system is that it can work with minimal spectrum by reusing frequencies in non-adjacent cells, and you can increase capacity by adding more cells. Acquiring more spectrum by stealing, sorry "borrowing", unlicensed spectrum is just a cheap way (for the telcos) to avoid speeding money on increasing cell site density.

    2 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Typical greed of corporates

    The small amount of license frequencies available to the public are the most efficiently used frequencies in the spectrum. Get your EFFing hands off of it.

    4 0 Reply
  4. russsh

    Share and share alike

    The spectrum is there for all to share. If I want to use a bit to communicate with my mobile provider, how is that any different from you using it to communicate with a WiFi hotspot?

    0 2 Reply
    1. MT Field
      Reply Icon

      Re: Share and share alike

      It's not all to share. Some of it is licensed on commercial terms, and some is reserved for unlicensed use.

      3 0 Reply
      1. russsh
        Reply Icon

        Re: Share and share alike

        Agree, @MT Field, I was referring to the unlicensed spectrum - the subject of this article.

        0 0 Reply
    2. Roland6 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Share and share alike

      If I want to use a bit to communicate with my mobile provider, how is that any different from you using it to communicate with a WiFi hotspot?

      Depends if you are communicating with your mobile provider then you are paying for the privilege!

      I would expect you wouldn't be too happy if your service quality was being negatively impacted by my WiFi hotspot, particularly as your service provider will simply point you at the relevant service waiver for services delivered over unlicensed spectrum...

      0 0 Reply
  5. choleric
    Facepalm

    Point?

    I am still unclear on what the benefit of this is.

    If this is about opportunistically using WiFi spectrum in areas where cellular spectrum is congested surely it fails because most of those areas will already be congested with WiFi points (population bringing cellular and WiFi devices with them where they go).

    Also what would this mean for something like a LTE-U WiFi access point? It could contend itself out of existence.

    Marginal gain at the cost of a big increase in complication and frustration.

    This seems like a bad idea all round.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Woosh
      Reply Icon

      Re: Point?

      LTE-U is a great idea if you are a carrier that has deployed large numbers of Wi-Fi access points to combat a spectrum squeeze. This is an extremely common deployment strategy in Asia, and particularly Japan where SoftBank has deployed over 400,000 access points.

      The reality is that carrier Wi-Fi is a stop-gap solution; most devices handle switching between LTE and Wi-Fi poorly, some users don't configure Wi-Fi on their devices or disable it to save battery, and authentication can be a problem especially if the device doesn't support EAP-SIM.

      Moving to LTE-U means that the 'Wi-Fi' boxes are actually base stations and become a seamless part of the existing network, doing the same job as the Wi-Fi access points (traffic offload) but without the need for any special configuration; both data and voice (VoLTE) can make use of them, and there is no need for any configuration on the part of the user. By using carrier aggregation with the licensed spectrum, data transfer rates can also be boosted, and all traffic can be as secure as the licensed network.

      LTE doesn't sound like great idea if you are not a carrier or in the base station business. The wolves are preying on the sheep (LTE = Let's Take Everything!).

      The reality is that the carriers are there anyway with their access points, and the spectrum being considered for LTE-U is not reserved exclusively for Wi-Fi; anything that complies with the spectrum plan in terms of frequency, power control and interference protection is able to be used.

      So both groups have to find a way to make coexistence work. Since LTE-U is newer (and carriers can fall back on their licensed spectrum) it is better for LTE-U to fail than Wi-Fi if coexistence in a particular environment is difficult.

      Since Qualcomm now owns Atheros, so they have stakes in both LTE and Wi-Fi, although their LTE revenue is almost surely the larger part.

      1 0 Reply
      1. Roland6 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Point?

        Part of the rationale goes back to the whole idea of femtocells. As Whoosh notes, it makes sense if you are a carrier to replace WiFi with LTE-U, because in some respects it doesn't matter if your PC talks to your printer via WiFI or LTE-U, but it does make it easier to blend in cellular traffic. However, the big downside is that once everything talks LTE-U, the typical user is likely to have less visibility of which network their PC is actually connected to, resulting in problematic behavior. For example, having two WiFi AP's (different ISP's) in my house can at times cause problems as a 'work' PC can connect to the 'wrong one'. This situation is usually only discovered when a user attempts to print and their PC can't find the printer.

        0 0 Reply
        1. Woosh
          Reply Icon

          Re: Point?

          LTE-U isn't about replacing Wi-Fi wholesale. It just means that in an area where the user would have had the option of using a carrier Wi-Fi access point, the carrier can deploy LTE-U instead which will automatically be used without any special configuration. For legacy carrier Wi-Fi users, they'd still need some Wi-Fi in any case; it may be that they simply use a lower channel bandwidth to get extra space for their LTE-U transmissions (spectrum re-farming).

          LTE devices will use LTE-U to gain access to additional bandwidth in certain areas. There won't be any LTE-U only devices, and things like printers, etc., which would not be connected over LTE don't make sense over LTE-U either (think of all the NAT issues with most carriers).

          Yes, you can think of LTE-U access points as femtocells, because that's what they would be. Probably with some licensed spectrum as well if the carrier wants to (if you're deploying LTE-U you might as well deploy some LTE too).

          0 0 Reply
  6. wwwhatsup

    Isn't WiFi offload generally free of data charges, whereas LTE-U will not be? Thus the whole thing is lose-lose for consumers?

    1 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like