back to article Google and cable pals oppose LTE-U's spectrum grab plan

America's National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has recruited a bunch of high-profile supporters in its attempt to fend off the Federal Communications Commision's interest in LTE-U. LTE-U is a spectrum-plus-standards proposal under which wireless kit could opportunistically use empty spectrum, even if a …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Mage Silver badge
    Pirate

    LTE-U

    Yet another attempt at so called White Space radio. It doesn't work and can't sensibly work.

    Project Loon is daft (I wonder what Google is really up to?), it doesn't scale and is a hazard, but LTE-U is disingenuous greed, theft and malicious.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: LTE-U

      Perhaps you can elaborate on just why such a scheme can't work? What gets in the way that can't somehow be negotiated?

      1. DryBones
        Facepalm

        Re: LTE-U

        Simply put, it completely breaks the FCC's authority and the spectrum management system. Spectrum is licensed for use. Incursions and excursions are monitored for, fines are issued and licenses are revoked based on these things. And now LTE-U wants to go wherever its radio can take it. Wasn't the FCC just talking about locking down routers in case they could go outside their band?

        Madness.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: LTE-U

          But the FCC has already released its authority on certain frequencies. That's why it's called unlicensed spectrum. They're anarchy zones, basically, and as far as regulation is concerned, the genie's already out of the bottles with unlicensed spectrum. If the FCC tried to reclaim them, they'd run into tons of interference.

          Now, if a device using unlicensed spectrum crosses into licensed spectrum, then it's the FCC's job to look into it. But apart from that (and perhaps some token ground rules the FCC may have set), unlicensed spectrum is pretty much every device for itself. If LTE-U uses unlicensed spectrum, it will have to give and take with everything else there.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: LTE-U

            Except if I use the unlicensed 5 GHz range on my wireless router, it broadcasts at a fraction of a watt. A cellular tower using it will broadcast a lot more powerfully than that, so anyone who lives anywhere near a LTE-U tower will be unable to use that band in their wireless router. Even if you lived a ways away if your next door neighbor was connected to a LTE-U cell the tower would be constantly shooting signals back that would swamp your router's output.

            Listen before talk is what Ethernet does with CSMA/CD - and there's a reason why Ethernet is limited to 100 meters. If it allowed 1000 meters there would be a much higher probability of collisions. Imagine the expansion of the collision domain due to LTE-U with a range measured in kilometers!

            The cellular companies are sick of having to spend billions on spectrum so they'd just rather take unlicensed spectrum for their own. Even if they agreed to listen to talk (which they haven't yet) their powerful transmitters and constant use would pretty much ruin it for the rest of us. They know that, but they don't care because they can deal with some bad feelings to save billions.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: LTE-U

              If it gets bad enough, the residents should be able to band together and file a complaint on the grounds that their bandwidth-hogging amounts to jamming, which in the US is illegal under ANY frequency. This would allow the FCC to step in again and figure out a solution. This would have to be done on a site-by-site basis because each one will have a different makeup of frequencies in use.

              Anyway, 5Ghz is a pretty lousy frequency to use for something like LTE: both in terms of range and in terms of penetration (important for an urban setting). I would think the ideal target for them is the 900MHz range that was once dominated by cordless phones (these days most use DECT).

  3. Trollslayer

    US cable companies?

    Who ALWAYS have the consumer's interest at heart.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: US cable companies?

      Yeah they just don't want this because it gives cellular companies more bandwidth = better ability to compete with cable companies for internet access and streaming video.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If a private frequency (well, paid-for and allocated) is vacant, you shouldn't be able to just start using it. You /should/ be able to petition to have the license revoked for non-use.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      To my knowledge, the LTE-U discussions have never been about any private/allocated frequencies. The 'U' in LTE-U stands for unlicensed. i.e. the 900 MHz range the old cordless phones used, the 2.4 GHz range the newer cordless phones and first generation wireless used, and the 5.8(?) GHz range the second generation wireless used.

      I believe it is only the latter being discussed in relation to LTE-U - they want to use the higher frequencies because it has more bandwidth and can support higher data rates.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Outdoor WiFi 5GHz usage up towers is proving problematic enough (interference with weather radar systems up to 50miles away) without having cellcos muscling in on the game and making things worse.

        Their solution to Wifi interference will be to crank the mill a little harder to ensure it breaks. If they do the same for doppler radar the breakage could be messy.

POST COMMENT House rules

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

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like