[Make-wifi-fast] RE : [Bloat] Save WiFi from the FCC - DEADLINE is in 3 days *September* 8
MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN
luca.muscariello at orange.com
Tue Sep 8 08:13:31 EDT 2015
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
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:
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
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, <luca.muscariello at orange.com> 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 at 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
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dave may have buried the lede in his previous note... The date for
>>> 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:
>>> To submit a comment, click the green "SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT" button on
>>> Please post a link to your comments when you're done.
>>> On Sep 5, 2015, at 6:42 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In other news:
>>> I am glad to see the more political save-the-wifi coming online rapidly:
>>> 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> 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.
More information about the Make-wifi-fast