to be fair I should say that these technologies are gonna be a lot more expensive than wifi. There is a good reason to keep wifi simple. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Luca Muscariello < luca.muscariello@gmail.com> wrote: > LTE-U and LTE-LAA are basically the same thing. > They require a licensed anchor. > MuLTEFire does not. > > All needs to have a listen before talk and some level of fairness. > > All these are gonna give a lot better quality and capacity than 802.11. > Enough to push 802.11 improvement in the standard? > > > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, Dave Taht wrote: > >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Luca Muscariello >> wrote: >> > Correct, but in between that time and now a lot has been done in >> different >> > areas but not much on this point. >> > The fact that some part of the industry is looking at LTE-U is also >> because >> > 802.11 standard is not good enough. >> >> What do you think of LTE-LAA? >> >> I do think very strongly that actual usage of 802.11 can be made >> vastly more efficient, that we can use up a great deal of the mac >> currently being left unused, and schedule txops way more efficiently - >> and that I'd love to test with michal's patch set against the LTE-U >> tests cablelabs, etc which did >> >> 100 stations before (stock): >> >> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/10tothe5.svg >> >> after >> >> http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/drr/newcode.svg >> >> I became mortally opposed to LTE-U (lacking exponential backoff and >> ignoring sparse station behavior, as well as today's crappy wifi >> drivers - along with some very dubious benchmarks), but have not poked >> much into LTE-LAA. >> >> I freely admit to loathing the 802.11 mac, and IF LTE-LAA could be as >> open, accessible and usable to ordinary users as wifi was, would be >> more embracing of it. >> >> > >> > >> > On Wednesday, 11 May 2016, David Lang wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Luca Muscariello wrote: >> >> >> >>> It's surprising that 802.11 standard never considered time fairness in >> >>> the >> >>> EDCF. A reason might be the time fairness might be enforced using the >> >>> PCF. >> >> >> >> >> >> to be fair, at that point the rate variation was 1Mb - 11Mb and wasn't >> >> expected to change much during use. >> >> >> >> David Lang >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list >> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Täht >> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! >> http://blog.cerowrt.org >> >