This is why we can't have nice wireless things in the USA ....



  • Verizon and T-Mobile are looking to start using unlicensed frequencies (e.g. Wi-Fi) for LTE.

    From the article:

    Verizon and T-Mobile are adamant their technology won’t degrade Wi-Fi connections. “Every test that we’ve done shows that LTE-U is as good of a neighbor to Wi-Fi as Wi-Fi is to itself,” Patrick Welsh, director of federal government affairs at Verizon, told the newspaper.

    IOW it's the guy in the upstairs apartment that plays tackle football at 2AM with his buddies because they're drunk and they think it's fun.



  • I'm not sure how that makes even sense for them because the range for WiFi is usually quite limited.

    Unless they're cranking up the strength of their signal - in which case it definitely would not be a "good neighbour".



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm not sure how that makes even sense for them because the range for WiFi is usually quite limited.

    Unless they're cranking up the strength of their signal - in which case it definitely would not be a "good neighbour".

    I've not looked at the specifics of LTE-U, but Wi-Fi isn't all that neighborly, so if it's no worse than it's definitely not going to make the unlicensed bands any better.



  • @rad131304 said:

    as good of a neighbour to Wi-Fi as Wi-Fi is to itself

    Which means, "not very good".



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm not sure how that makes even sense for them because the range for WiFi is usually quite limited.

    Unless they're cranking up the strength of their signal - in which case it definitely would not be a "good neighbour".

    I just skimmed a couple abstracts, LTE-U is a huge windfall for AT&T and Verizon. Essentially the spec says they could aggregate Wi-Fi and Cell, so anywhere Verizon/AT&T have one of their FTTP all-in-one modems they essentially have a free Wi-Fi node they can use to opportunistically route calls/data over instead of using the cellular network, as long as your device's Wi-Fi is on.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Verizon and T-Mobile are looking to start using unlicensed frequencies (e.g. Wi-Fi) for LTE.

    So?

    They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @rad131304 said:
    Verizon and T-Mobile are looking to start using unlicensed frequencies (e.g. Wi-Fi) for LTE.

    So?

    They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.

    It's just going to make those channels even more terrible - there's ~30 Wi-Fi stations within range of my apartment not including mine.



  • @rad131304 said:

    It's just going to make those channels even more terrible - there's ~30 Wi-Fi stations within range of my apartment not including mine.

    Ok.

    Tough shit.

    They're unlicensed.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @rad131304 said:
    It's just going to make those channels even more terrible - there's ~30 Wi-Fi stations within range of my apartment not including mine.

    Ok.

    Tough shit.

    They're unlicensed.

    Check, I know for next time not to point out something terrible that might happen merely because it's not illegal.

    Edit: I think we should make that a response to anything you complain about from now on:

    Tough shit, it's not illegal.



  • Pretty much.

    If you want the FCC to address it, talk to the FCC. Don't blame Verizon or T-Mobile for making use of their legal rights.

    This is like the people in the open source world who gives away their products for free, then bitch that companies don't "give back". Well, why should they? If you wanted that, you should have put that in your license, idiot.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Pretty much.

    If you want the FCC to address it, talk to the FCC. Don't blame Verizon or T-Mobile for making use of their legal rights.

    This is like the people in the open source world who gives away their products for free, then bitch that companies don't "give back". Well, why should they? If you wanted that, you should have put that in your license, idiot.

    You assume I don't file complaints or petitions with the FCC, how cute.



  • That is cute.

    But here and now you are bitching and moaning about the wrong parties.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That is cute.

    Wait, why shouldn't I be unhappy that they appear to be planning to make a bad situation worse?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But here and now you are bitching and moaning about the wrong parties.

    Tough shit, it's not illegal.



  • I'm with blakey on this. They're doing nothing wrong. This isnt fundamentally different from the old lady next door to me getting WiFi and adding another device in congested space.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Wait, why shouldn't I be unhappy that they appear to be planning to make a bad situation worse?

    First of all, you have zero evidence that they are making a bad situation worse. Just fear-mongering.

    Secondly, Verizon isn't the one making your wifi worse, the FCC's policies are. Incidentally, those same policies are the reason you have wifi in the first place, so excuse me if I don't shed many tears like that Indian with the trash.



  • @loopback0 said:

    I'm with blakey on this. They're doing nothing wrong. This isnt fundamentally different from the old lady next door to me getting WiFi and adding another device in congested space.

    I never said what they were doing was wrong.



  • @rad131304 said:

    “Every test that we’ve done shows that LTE-U is as good of a neighbor to Wi-Fi as Wi-Fi is to itself,”

    Because EU law requires checking if anyone else is broadcasting on the channel first and developing the standard twice would have been more expensive.

    As I understand it, under US law, the phone companies could legally blanket the channel with static whenever the slot isn't allocated to a device, and this would make for a simpler standard. But EU doesn't allow that.



  • I live in Hong Kong, and at my home I found all 14 channels have been occupied, 6 out of them are from commercial WiFi service providers.

    Not sure about urban areas in U.S., especially near places like shopping arcades or landmarks.

    EDIT: Or it's 13? not sure if I remember it correctly.



  • They link to a Fortune article which has a lot more detail than the blurb in Time:

    Even from there, it's hard to say that both sides aren't just throwing FUD around.

    Due to the low-power requirements for unlicensed bands, operators can’t use LTE-U everywhere. Mainly it’s an indoor technology, but inside of buildings is exactly where the vast majority of mobile data consumption happens today. LTE-U could add a lot of capacity to an operator’s networks, and because operators wouldn’t have to sink billions of dollars into buying airwaves, they could deliver all of that capacity at a much lower cost, which could—at least, theoretically—be passed on to consumers.

    That makes it sound like they'll target certain buildings. Offices, hotels, conventions? Could be a big win in those places, but it seems like a lot depends on how good the technology is (they apparently use a different frequency sharing method than normal WiFi) and how it's actually deployed.



  • This post is deleted!


  • You know what, blakeyrat's right. Sometimes you have to solve a bad situation by making it worse until it pops.

    Go to the FCC headquarters, and put in two massive antennas on each side, as powerful as you can legally make them, conveniently communicating in the unlicensed Wi-Fi band. See how long it takes for them to fix it.

    I'm not joking btw.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.

    That's not how that works, fuckhead. Unlicensed or not, you are not allowed to just fuck up everyone's shit when you use it. If you make a device that intentionally or knowingly causes interference to those unlicensed bands, you are still in violation of FCC rules.

    You're like that asshole who hears that we have absolute freedom of speech so you develop Tourettes on purpose. It still doesn't mean you can go about yelling "FIRE!" in crowded places.


  • area_deu

    Or you could just put them in a microwave ...



  • @boomzilla said:

    They link to a Fortune article which has a lot more detail than the blurb in Time:

    Even from there, it's hard to say that both sides aren't just throwing FUD around.

    I ignored most of the content from both articles, they were standard "OMG sky is falling". I was more commenting on the "don't worry it's only as bad as Wi-Fi" assurances, thinking that's a pretty low standard to set for yourself.

    @boomzilla said:

    >Due to the low-power requirements for unlicensed bands, operators can’t use LTE-U everywhere. Mainly it’s an indoor technology, but inside of buildings is exactly where the vast majority of mobile data consumption happens today. LTE-U could add a lot of capacity to an operator’s networks, and because operators wouldn’t have to sink billions of dollars into buying airwaves, they could deliver all of that capacity at a much lower cost, which could—at least, theoretically—be passed on to consumers.

    That makes it sound like they'll target certain buildings. Offices, hotels, conventions? Could be a big win in those places, but it seems like a lot depends on how good the technology is (they apparently use a different frequency sharing method than normal WiFi) and how it's actually deployed.

    Well, why not just pull a Comcast and just add a public Wi-Fi hotspot to every FTTP modem/router combo they already have deployed? Seems a cheaper and more effective way to reduce their cell tower load using existing infrastructure. It's not like they couldn't just summarily change the TOS.

    I suppose carriers could deploy pico-cells for hotels and conference centers in those ranges, but wireless does a much better job of penetrating walls at the licensed 600MHz-900Mhz frequencies than at the unlicensed 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz bands, and both Verizon and AT&T own a bunch of spectrum at those frequencies.

    I think the most likely scenario for new deployment is that a hotel itself would deploy LTE pico-cells in the unlicensed bands and then sell backhaul to the carriers.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I think the most likely scenario for new deployment is that a hotel itself would deploy LTE pico-cells in the unlicensed bands and then sell backhaul to the carriers.

    Yeah, I suspect that's how it will probably go, too. Or they'll come to some similar agreement with the carriers. But it sounds like it definitely has some upside potential.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    This is like the people in the open source world who gives away their products for free, then bitch that companies don't "give back". Well, why should they? If you wanted that, you should have put that in your license, idiot.

    If you do that, people complain that your license is too restrictive. See the anti-GPL thread over there :arrows:.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    That's not how that works, fuckhead.

    ... it actually is.

    @Polygeekery said:

    Unlicensed or not, you are not allowed to just fuck up everyone's shit when you use it.

    As long as you stay within the specified frequencies and power levels, you actually are. Those cordless phones in the 90s fucked up everybody's shit all the time... everybody who owns one (before they became computerized and scrambled) remembers being able to pick it up and accidentally hearing a neighbor's conversation. And guess what? Up-fucking aside, they were perfectly legal.

    @Polygeekery said:

    If you make a device that intentionally or knowingly causes interference to those unlicensed bands, you are still in violation of FCC rules.

    Ok; well then it's the FCC's job to do something about it. So why the hell is everybody bitching at Verizon instead?

    Oh, right. Because Corporations are TEH EVIL!!! and so anything a corporation does is by default scary and wrong and it doesn't matter if Corporations are responsible for pretty much ever increase in standard-of-living in the last 50 years.

    In any case, I'm not going to knee-jerk based on some scare-mongoring article.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    If you make a device that intentionally or knowingly causes interference to those unlicensed bands, you are still in violation of FCC rules.

    But just setting up multiple access points in the same place would do that, too. And who isn't to say that the original access points aren't the ones interfering with this new stuff? Which is all to say that blakey has one over you here. It's not so simple as you're trying to make it all out to be.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Oh, right. Because Corporations are TEH EVIL!!! and so anything a corporation does is by default scary and wrong and it doesn't matter if Corporations are responsible for pretty much ever increase in standard-of-living in the last 50 years.

    That's stupid even for you.

    When corporations do things that annoy and/or harm people, we get angry at them and complain on this forum. It's not hard to understand.

    Yes, even if what they are doing is legal, you can still be a dick and follow the rules. Yes, even if another organization is at fault for making the laws poorly, that just means there's two people to blame.

    When Keurig added DRM to their coffee machines people went online and bitched, and tried to get other people to boycott them, and I don't think that's bad (it actually worked). And they didn't do it because they hate corporations, they did it because they hated this thing this corporation did.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I think the most likely scenario for new deployment is that a hotel itself would deploy LTE pico-cells in the unlicensed bands and then sell backhaul to the carriers.

    That just makes it sadder. It's what I pointed out in that other thread about wi-fis and LTEs, we just have different protocols and devices competing with each other to provide the exact same service in the same place. With the only difference being who the money goes to.

    The result: interference for everyone.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    That's stupid even for you.

    Maybe; I am such a super-genius that even if I say normal genius-level stuff it can sound stupid comparatively.

    @anonymous234 said:

    When corporations do things that annoy and/or harm people, we get angry at them and complain on this forum. It's not hard to understand.

    No, it's not. But go back and read that first article. Replace the word "Verizon" with "Tom Jefferson, 136 Cedar Lane" and see if all the scare-mongering and arm-waving still makes any sense.

    Face it: that article exists because a lot of people are anti-Corporation, and they'll bitch and moan about everything a Corporation proposes to do.

    @anonymous234 said:

    Yes, even if what they are doing is legal, you can still be a dick and follow the rules.

    Duh? Did I say otherwise?

    @anonymous234 said:

    Yes, even if another organization is at fault for making the laws poorly, that just means there's two people to blame.

    Ok; but if you bitch at Verizon, you're bitching at the one party of the two who does not have the power to improve the situation.

    @anonymous234 said:

    When Keurig added DRM to their coffee machines people went online and bitched, and tried to get other people to boycott them, and I don't think that's bad (it actually worked).

    Ok.

    @anonymous234 said:

    And they didn't do it because they hate corporations, they did it because they hated this thing this corporation did.

    Right; so... it's a different situation than the one we're talking about. It was a dick move that obviously didn't improve Keurig's service, and benefited nobody but themselves. That's not true of this proposal by Verizon.

    Cool story, bro. I guess?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.

    Licensed means that no one has to have a license to use a transmitter, so long as they meet other regulatory requirements.

    For example, citizens band is unlicensed, but to use it there are requirements you have to meet, and you can't use it for anything but voice radio. You couldn't just shove cellphones in there, even though it's unlicensed.

    I'm not very informed on this issue, but it looks to me like it is a move by AT&T and Verizon to take over more spectrum space, to drive competition out. It's not surprising: They envision a world where every device connects as a paid wireless (cellphone channel) with them being the ones being paid, of course. That's tied in with the same reasons they have defrauded the government on subsidies for wired connections; and the reason that Sandy Point still has no wired connections even now, years after the hurricane.

    In the end, I think this will be fine, so long as the FCC follows through with plans to declare wireless a utility space.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Licensed means that no one has to have a license to use a transmitter, so long as they meet other regulatory requirements.

    Duh? Are we going into "I disagree with Blakeyrat, therefore he must be the dumbest motherfucker on Earth" mode here?

    I already mentioned the other requirements. I'll also point out the article linked gives ZERO evidence that Verizon is not meeting those requirements.



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm not sure how that makes even sense for them because the range for WiFi is usually quite limited.

    Well, data connection swapping has gotten pretty good, such that I can hit a few packets on wifi just by driving down the road.

    Multiply that by how many people, and they could see a few percent in cell usages savings.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    They're unlicensed

    Still doesn't mean you can do anything you want with them...
    FRS is unlicensed but you can't run 100w on it. Nor can you run P25 digital or set up a repeater (without a GMRS license at least).
    If you interfere too much the FCC comes looking for you. Same with MURS, CB, etc. Just because it's unlicensed doesn't mean it's a free for all. It just means it's a bit harder to enforce the rules



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    I'm not very informed on this issue, but it looks to me like it is a move by AT&T and Verizon to take over more spectrum space, to drive competition out.

    How so,

    If you haven't noticed, ATT and friends all have their own free wireless hotspots all throughout the US.
    I hit them all the time driving through town. Instant connect.

    All it seems they're doing is moving cellular through that channel.

    So the space is already taken up, they're just going to utilize it better.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Duh? Are we going into "I disagree with Blakeyratsomeone else, therefore he must be the dumbest motherfucker on Earth" mode here?

    We call that "blakeyrat mode".


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    But just setting up multiple access points in the same place would do that, too.

    Yeah, it would. But unlicensed does not mean unregulated. Case in point, citizens band radios. Yes, they are essentially unlicensed, but they are still very much regulated. Transmit power has an upper cap, you cannot knowingly impair the ability of others to use CB, etc. Just because you do not need a license does not make it the wild west of radio frequencies.

    @boomzilla said:

    And who isn't to say that the original access points aren't the ones interfering with this new stuff?

    Well, the FCC generally tends to rule that the new guy on the block is in the wrong when there are legacy applications of unlicensed frequencies.

    @boomzilla said:

    Which is all to say that blakey has one over you here.

    No, he really doesn't. He is just loud.

    @boomzilla said:

    It's not so simple as you're trying to make it all out to be.

    I did not mean to make it out to be simple. Nothing with the FCC is. I know this because my wife, prior to becoming an HR director, was in legal and worked with FCC law every single day with her employer. I am not going to run it by her just for the sake of winning some argument on the internet. I don't care that much. But I can say with absolute certainty that "unlicensed" does not mean "unregulated".



  • @Polygeekery said:

    But unlicensed does not mean unregulated.

    Is there anyone saying that it does?

    @Polygeekery said:

    But I can say with absolute certainty that "unlicensed" does not mean "unregulated".

    Yes, but why do you think you need to state the obvious here?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    Is there anyone saying that it does?

    In those exact words, no. I would say that blakey heavily implied it.

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, but why do you think you need to state the obvious here?

    Did you forget who my original reply was directed towards? ;)


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    Is there anyone saying that it does?

    @blakeyrat said:

    Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.

    Any purpose kinda seems to imply no regulation. It's also totally false because I can't run digital modes on CB/FRS/MURS, meaning I can't use them "for any purpose"

    EDIT: I also can't use FRS for business use without a GMRS license (hah, like anyone follows that rule). And I can't use MURS or CB frequencies at all for Civil Air Patrol for any use ever, full stop. So even if he meant "I can use those frequencies in the acceptable modes for any use" it's also not true.

    It doesn't seem like they're breaking the rules though. They might break the ability to find a free channel even more, but it's not against the rules I've read...



  • @sloosecannon said:

    Any purpose kinda seems to imply no regulation.

    OK. Fair enough. Still not enough to get me to carefully read his posts though. Still, the use proposed here is basically the same use as what we're already using it for, so he's got context (if not the pendant) on his side.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @sloosecannon said:

    It doesn't seem like they're breaking the rules though. They might break the ability to find a free channel even more, but it's not against the rules I've read...

    It likely would be, if they start fucking things up for other people. I don't know that they would. I have NFC.

    I seriously doubt blakey's version of reality where someone comes in with a commercial product that fucks up wifi for everyone in the US and the FCC has the official position of, "Oh well, those are unlicensed bands. The public can go fuck themselves, those bands are RF anarchy."


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    Still not enough to get me to carefully read his posts though.

    I try to do the same. But, in some cases, you can just scan his posts and something jumps out on you that says, "Well, that's bullshit on a stick."


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Polygeekery said:

    @sloosecannon said:
    It doesn't seem like they're breaking the rules though. They might break the ability to find a free channel even more, but it's not against the rules I've read...

    It likely would be, if they start fucking things up for other people. I don't know that they would. I have NFC.

    I seriously doubt blakey's version of reality where someone comes in with a commercial product that fucks up wifi for everyone in the US and the FCC has the official position of, "Oh well, those are unlicensed bands. The public can go fuck themselves, those bands are RF anarchy."

    It probably depends on how they implement stuff. If they can make the case that they're causing no more interference than an existing WiFi station then there's nothing the FCC can do. If, however, they do something like eat up all the frequencies available, that would get them in a little bit of trouble.

    FWIW, the bands they're using are restricted to ridiculously low transmit power. I'm honestly not even sure how they seem to think this could help anything... IIRC the MAXRAD is something like 1w for any use, which is... not a lot. Phones probably don't transmit much more than that but the towers most certainly do...

    EDIT and if they go into the bands where amateur radio is the primary, they're gonna have some serious ARRL trouble if they start interfering with HAMs

    EDIT2: Max transmitter is 1w, MAXRAD is 4. Whatever. Really freaking low.



  • @sloosecannon said:

    Still doesn't mean you can do anything you want with them...

    Duh! Again! Who said otherwise!?

    Jesus, are you people getting notes from like a mailing list or something? You missed the boat, CoyneTheDup beat you to this really dumb talking point.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    Yeah, it would. But unlicensed does not mean unregulated.

    A THIRD TIME! WTF!

    Nobody said otherwise.



  • @Polygeekery said:

    In those exact words, no. I would say that blakey heavily implied it.

    When did that happen? I don't recall "implying" it.



  • This guy:

    @blakeyrat said:

    They're unlicensed. Anybody can use them for any purpose, that's the point.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.