From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (r-mail1.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.41]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FF421FD2E; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 26D0CA440C6; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by r-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B178A4408C; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.31.0.14] (10.193.116.12) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:31 +0200 References: <3622_1441530152_55EC0128_3622_12857_1_trq0v99audwl95cwathr8odm.1441530143942@email.android.com> To: Dave Taht From: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN Message-ID: <55EED0EB.4040707@orange.com> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:31 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: bloat , cerowrt-devel , "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Bloat] RE : Save WiFi from the FCC - DEADLINE is in 3 days *September* 8 X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:13:57 -0000 IMHO, the duty cycle based time sharing system used by LTE-U doesn't seem to be harmful. The fact that wifi is poor in using its air time is 802.11's fault. On 09/08/2015 09:55 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Well, so far there has not been enough technical analysis. It is the > game theory fail that bothers me most - users of LTE spectrum can > encroach upon the wifi bands, and retreat to their own, but wifi users > cannot, and further, cannot even detect when or if lte-u is messing up > their lives, nor complain to a responsible party. > > In only one of the two analyses published to date: > > http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.de/2015/06/encouraging-innovation-wi-fi-and-lte-in.html This document does not prove unfairness. It shows wifi is inefficient in recovering after a LTE-U busy period. > > They buried the lede here - > > "A distinctive aspect of LTE in unlicensed—as compared to other > unlicensed technologies developed to date—is that it is a license­ > anchored system that operates simultaneously across licensed and > unlicensed bands. Furthermore, LTE in unlicensed allows traffic to be > moved dynamically, on a per­user and even on a per­traffic flow basis, > across the licensed and unlicensed bands. This makes LTE in unlicensed > substantially less sensitive to interference and collisions in the > unlicensed band, because it is able to move traffic so quickly from > the unlicensed band to the licensed band, in a very granular fashion, > whenever congestion occurs in the unlicensed band. Purely unlicensed > operations, by contrast, can fail entirely if there is interference in > that spectrum. Reduced sensitivity to the conditions in the unlicensed > bands significantly reduces the incentives that designers of LTE in > unlicensed have to develop well­functioning coexistence mechanisms." I agree in part. Mostly because LTE-U isn't really a technology designed to compete with 802.11. It's mostly an offloading technique that of course integrates better to LTE than wifi. On the other hand LTE-U can be used as a full unlicensed technology with DL/UL in the 5GHz band. I do not see how full unlicensed mode can be forbidden. If I build an LTE-U AP with DL/UL in 5GHz band and I efficiently use my fair share of air time, what's the problem? It's a different way of using the public spectrum, which tends to waste a lot of public air time. I do not like public resources to be wasted that way. Do you? > > secondly, having another user of this spectrum (in addition to the DFS > mess), will make it harder for wifi to continue to evolve. Certainly > we have here a lot of fixes stacked up that will make wifi a lot > better, and future versions of the wifi standards will do better. > > I am no fan of the wifi mac, believe me, and if LTE-U was something I > could buy in a store, and hack on, and use for private use, and deploy > any way I wanted, I would probably favor it's deployment. But that is > *not* the case, which is why I am saying that 1) "unlicensed spectrum > = the public's spectrum" and 2) HANDS OFF OUR WIFI to the carriers. > > Places like forbes are pitching this as a battle between isps that use > wifi, and the carriers... which bugs me. 5.x ghz is the people's > spectrum, that we should be free to use any way we want... and to make > it faster, easier to use, and more reliable, my goal - LTE-U is a huge > step backwards. In a way you are saying that competition does not help innovation while I've always heard people saying the opposite to be true. I feel like carriers gave up trying to integrate LTE and wifi, because the latter sucks. Wifi is selling Gbps with 70% overhead. Wifi chip makers are selling 10Gbps wifi which is ridiculously far from reality. Again, public air time is valuable and shouldn't be wasted that way. > > I would like vastly more spectrum opened up to free public use - the > rules and regs around 24ghz and 60ghz are quite insane and > restrictive, and - for example - I'd like a uhf band opened up for > general use also.... Agree. But not wasted. > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 2:02 AM, wrote: >> is there any serious study that proves that LTE U is a threat? >> >> -------- Message d'origine -------- >> De : Dave Taht >> Date :2015/09/06 12:06 AM (GMT+01:00) >> À : Rich Brown >> Cc : make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel , bloat >> Objet : Re: [Bloat] Save WiFi from the FCC - DEADLINE is in 3 days >> *September* 8 >> >> while the current FCC course sucks, I personally have been unable to >> summon the moxy to fight anymore. Decided to migrate to the eu >> instead, only to find the same ruling going into play here. Is there >> no place left on the planet safe to innovate in? >> >> and: LTE-U is an even greater threat, and I'm low on ideas on how to counter >> it. >> >> http://www.wsj.com/articles/cell-carriers-battle-for-wi-fi-airwaves-1440543853 >> >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Rich Brown wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> Dave may have buried the lede in his previous note... The date for >>> comments >>> to the FCC is not a month away, but only three days away - 8 Sep 2015. >>> >>> To see the talking points for preparing your comments, go to: >>> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi >>> >>> To submit a comment, click the green "SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT" button on >>> >>> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/06/2015-18402/equipment-authorization-and-electronic-labeling-for-wireless-devices >>> >>> Please post a link to your comments when you're done. >>> >>> Rich >>> >>> On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> >>> In other news: >>> >>> I am glad to see the more political save-the-wifi coming online rapidly: >>> >>> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi >>> >>> I HAD NO IDEA that the follow-on rules for 2016 would basically ban >>> modifiable firmware entirely, nor that the DFS problem was due to only 41 >>> old radars that need to be replaced anyway. >>> >>> Comment deadline for the fcc is sept 8th, not oct 8, which means we should >>> strap ourselves into the writing console, like, today. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Täht >> endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. > >