Worries Mount Over Upcoming LTE-U Deployments Hurting Wi-Fi 173
alphadogg writes: LTE-U is a technology developed by Qualcomm that lets a service provider broadcast and receive signals over unlicensed spectrum, which is usable by anybody – specifically, in this case, the spectrum used by Wi-Fi networks in both businesses and homes. By opening up this new spectrum, major U.S. wireless carriers hope to ease the load on the licensed frequencies they control and help their services keep up with demand. Unsurprisingly, several outside experiments that pitted standard LTE technology or 'simulated LTE-U' technology, in the case of one in-depth Google study, against Wi-Fi transmitters on the same frequencies found that LTE drastically reduced the throughput on the Wi-Fi connection.
Perfect for Hotels! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost. Except it will be the phone companies who will be jamming wifi. Except everywhere not just in a hotel. With wifi access becoming more and more prevalent, I was wondering how the carriers were going to stay relevant. This is how, by making the next iteration of G cripple wifi's performance.
Re:Perfect for Hotels! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Interesting)
Over regulation is stifling innovation.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they could skip selling off spectrum for billions of dollars to enormous companies and instead open it up the way they did the 2.4 Ghz band?
You must be new here. :)
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Insightful)
Over regulation is stifling innovation.
I've got news for you: keeping spectrum open for unlicensed use by small players IS regulation. Without regulation, giant telcos and broadcast entities could stomp all over whichever spectrum they choose without regard to whether it's ruining your WiFi.
Stop arguing against regulation and argue against poor regulation.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Without regulation, giant telcos and broadcast entities could stomp all over whichever spectrum they choose without regard to whether it's ruining your WiFi.
Without regulation, we'd be using wideband spread spectrum for our signals, and our signals would be stomping all over any attempt by big telcos to take over the radio spectrum.
By arguing for regulation, you're arguing for big business. Are you a 1%-er?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you a fucking idiot? If I send a continuous spike through an entire range of frequencies, that'd kill your "spread spectrum. Sure, you can go use other frequencies, but I can generate noise or just overwhelm any signal you can put out.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you a fucking idiot? If I send a continuous spike through an entire range of frequencies, that'd kill your "spread spectrum. Sure, you can go use other frequencies, but I can generate noise or just overwhelm any signal you can put out.
Yes, if someone is actively trying to prevent me from talking to my wi-fi base station, they can do that. But what kind of idiot would throw gigawatts of power across gigahertz just so they'd interfere with my signal? Radio Moscow?
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if someone is actively trying to prevent me from talking to my wi-fi base station, they can do that. But what kind of idiot would throw gigawatts of power across gigahertz just so they'd interfere with my signal?
They don't need to continuously jam it, they just need to make it drop out enough to be obnoxious. Sending out a pulse crafted to disconnect people from their wireless access points several times an hour would be enough to annoy the non tech savvy into just buying a 4g connection for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to remember that the power from your AP is irrelevant since your mobile devices will out put a max of about 250 mW and the average laptop and gaming console registers less than 1 watt.
Re: (Score:3)
I argue for minimum wage. Does that make me a 1%er too? Where can I pick up my check?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
... Spectrum seems a bit over regulated at the moment, there's barely any room for entities that aren't massive corporations with billions of dollars to do anything....
You conflate 'over regulated' with 'selling to the highest bidder'. The current level of regulation can continue, it just needs to get away from the highest bidder process.
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to your oligarchy ... if it isn't designed to benefit massive corporations with billions of dollars, it isn't happening.
They're the ones who have the elected people on the payroll.
Re: (Score:1)
They're the ones who have the elected people on the payroll.
Yeah well, the voters are the ones that elect them.
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the UNII-2 and other proposed 5 GHz wifi bands overlap with radar, meaning that equipment has to implement DFS and the radar gets priority. Having LTE in -1 and -3 means that all 5 GHz bands now have to deal with non-wifi interferers.
Re: (Score:2)
> Having LTE in -1 and -3 means that all 5 GHz bands now have to deal with non-wifi interferers.
It is called industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio band for a reason. WiFi always had to compete with other applications - for example microwave ovens. Of course they try not to emit any radiation, but if you have 600W inside the box, you are bound to leak a few uW.
Re: (Score:2)
only UNII-1 and UNII-3...no UNII-2
In other words, they are using the spectrum that people actually want since UNII-2 has limits regarding power and avoiding interference with radar.
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh good, more contention. (Score:5, Informative)
I present "The US Frequency Allocation Table -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 2.4 Ghz spectrum was opened up for general use because it has relatively poor long distance characteristics thanks to it being absorbed strongly by water
Note that 2.4GHz is absorbed pretty much the same as 2.1GHz, 2.2GHz, 2.3GHz, 2.5GHz, 2.6GHz, ... There are no blips or surprises if you plot it out. The 2.4GHz ISM band appears to have been chosen just because some experimenters had built heating equipment that happened to use that frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2.4 Ghz spectrum was opened up for general use because it has relatively poor long distance characteristics thanks to it being absorbed strongly by water.
Interesting mention, and why microwave ovens use 2450MHz, water absorption helps keep RF signal local.
This lead to an explosion of use in the band where your average apartment building has dozens of devices competing for the spectrum.
Back in the days when ships were wood and men were steel, frequencies were allocated to business and public safety 2-way radios, broadcast radio, television, microwave backhaul, amateur radio, military, aviation, navigation, boaters, etc. But 2.4GHz was good for heating food as H2O molecule absorbs that freq. As these ovens are "noisy" FCC figured this will be good for general ISM devices. Then along comes
you don't say... (Score:2)
killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is good f (Score:3)
killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is good for the carriers and bad for the uses.
Also just wait for the Mexico towers near the board to up there power as they rake in the roaming that goes as high as $20 a meg.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Also just wait for the Mexico towers near the board to up there power as they rake in the roaming that goes as high as $20 a meg.
I doubt it. Use of electromagnetic spectrum near borders is regulated by treaties. Also, the unlicensed use of WiFi frequencies comes with a condition: you must keep your power output below a certain level.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm just driving on the i8 from San Diego CA to Phoenix AZ has me connecting to mexico towers. I get a text welcoming me to Mexico from T-Mobile. I have roaming data turned off so I haven't tested the data prices - nor will I risk it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying you won't pick up Mexico towers or be unable to use them. Of course you can. I'm just saying Mexico can't unilaterally boost their power, contrary to what the OP was suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless is not flawless. Your phone will accept the service with the stronger signal, even if it means you're roaming, unless you tell it not to roam. Various natural effects can conspire to make the signal from a foreign tower stronger than a domestic one, including geography, seasonal foliage, buildings, ionospheric reflection, and so on. The foreign users see the same kind of thing on their side of the border.
I sympathize with your hassle dealing with your carrier when unintended roaming happens. I thin
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on your T-Mobile plan, it might not cost you anything - their current plans include 2g roaming in several countries at no extra cost, and you can't roam above 2g unless you sign up for a paid plan that gives an allowance of faster roaming data.
Re:killing wifi with high cost low cap cell is goo (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
If we elect Trump, they'll build a wall... to keep us out!
Re: (Score:2)
Spectrum Grab (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just a spectrum grab by the telcos. The key thing about this technology is that it requires a small control channel in the frequency range "owned" by the telco, but blasts all sorts of data over the unlicensed 5GHz spectrum.
It would be one thing if the entire connection was done in the unlicensed spectrum, so anyone could set up an LTE network (like wi-max), but to require licensed spectrum just to require it should not be allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There should be a quid pro quo rule: If you use a particular frequency band, then anybody who is allowed to use that band is also allowed to use all bands that are licensed to you. If the telcos want us to stay of their licensed bands, then they need to stay out of the bands that we are allowed to use.
Re: (Score:1)
yes
Overrun (Score:3, Insightful)
Do wifi routers have their own spectrum? Perhaps there should be a set-aside just for short range, get-along-nicely protocols.
The clogging varies with the square of the range. It is stupid to allow a handful of transmissions to clog up a million houses in a city.
Alternatively, disallow telcos from charging for data sent over this spectrum. There you go!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we could just beam signals at your towers, using thousands of transmitters known as wi-fi devices, forcing you to stop being a jerk.
Re: (Score:3)
In the old days of pre-WiFi home networking, there used to be a scheme referred to as HPNA, or Home Phone Line Networking where it would carve holes in the frequencies it used on your phone wiring so as to not interrupt analog modems, regular phone calls, or DSL service.
Why do I have a feeling that our friendly telcos won't bother with such good-neighbor approaches to this technology?
Cable company propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
So they are doing their damnedest to keep the wireless companies from being able to use the bandwidth that is becoming available as various old technologies such as analog broadcast TV frees up more and more of the spectrum.
On top of that any new frequency opened up to wireless will often then be used by the newest and best data technologies so a given bit of spectrum used in 4G will of course pack in way more data than a 3G spectrum of the same "size" and 5G will probably pack in just that much more into anything that newly opens up for it.
Eventually the 2G spectrum will be retired for use for maybe 6G sort of stuff but it is the new spectrums now that are used for the newest and best data streaming.
If you look at a graph of the spectrum opening up, combined with existing spectrum being re-purposed, combined with the ability to not only send data down that spectrum, but cool things like phased array antennas that can basically laser the data directly at a customer that graph will actually show that the typical netflixing customer could potentially go entirely wireless in not that many years.
This basically takes the whole "last mile" concept out and shoots it in the face. Then the last-mile turns into the-last-pile-of-expensive-crap.
Yes there will be some customers who need such absurd amounts of bandwidth that wireless really won't be it but for the average person watching netflix; they really will hit a limit where they then only slowly increase their demands.
So again I cry a little bit for slashdot to see this sort of corporate shilling happening again.
Re: (Score:1)
I am an "average consumer" and if I am affected by this then it isn't corporate shilling. Just because cable companies might have a position against this doesn't mean it doesn't also hurt consumers. *Right now* I use Wi-Fi and I care about my data throughput *right now* not in some hypothetical world that might exist 10 years in the future.
You sound like the shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's false, I've seen the tests, ie I've been there in person and while there are some worst case assumptions the testing that CableLabs did is completely valid and accurate. The notion that LTE isn't commonly running at full duty cycles is simply false for many/most urban and suburban towers.
Re: (Score:2)
The central problem is that WiFi is a "listen first" protocol while LTE is centrally scheduled. That means at full duty cycles, this was the worst case assumption the CableLabs study worked off of, that LTE-U absolutely degrades WiFi performance substantially. The counter claims were that LTE is seldom at full duty cycles is true, but only on towers that are lightly loaded. A busy tower will have a full or nearly full duty cycle in its licensed bands and there's no reason to imagine that the same won't
Re:Cable company propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have anything to support this claim? I know numerous people that have cut the cord regarding cable tv but kept internet, but no one that has dropped their traditional broadband for only wireless. The only two people I know that have cellular-only internet live out in the sticks where traditional broadband doesn't extend to and there is no other practical alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
If my siblings lived where I live then I would have helped them all cut their internet by now. My mother has netflix but barely even uses that. I think her monthly data usage
Ya I'm having trouble imagining it (Score:3)
Everyone I know, even the cheap types, keeps some kind of wired Internet. It is usually faster than wireless and always cheaper per GB. If you were an EXTREMELY light user I suppose you could go all wireless all the time, but even for the casual user who likes to surf the web on a daily basis and watch cat videos, you'll easily use more data than a wireless provider is interested in letting you have cheap and they'll charge and/or throttle.
Simple example: T-Mobile gives me phone, text, and 1GB of data for $
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is time for amateurs (hams) to step up and develop more 2.4GHz applications for networking. It would be an interesting side-effect if those apps happened to destroy LTE-U performance at the same time. As TFA points out, the "fairness" algorithm is at the discretion of the user, not mandated by law, so the carriers would have no problem if the hams develop a system that is fair to them but screws the carriers, right?
Who has links into Meshnet, and can you get them doing that? I'll happily devote a couple of old Linksys routers to Meshnet for the right cause.
Re: (Score:1)
Pitting LTE-U against standard WiFi, and it being a commercial service, should be unthinkable.
Unlicensed spectrum is already used by many entities for commercial services. For example, every hotel or airport that charges money for Wi-Fi is using unlicensed spectrum for commercial, for-profit services. Boingo and other Wi-Fi ISPs use Wi-Fi on unlicensed spectrum for commercial services. Cable companies setting up Wi-Fi access points (e.g. the nationwide CableWiFi network) are using unlicensed spectrum for commercial services. But it doesn't just stop at Wi-Fi. Utilities use the unlicensed 2.4GHz ba
Re: (Score:2)
Unlicensed spectrum is already used by many entities for commercial services.
"And" is a conjunction that means both clauses apply.
All those "commercial services" you trot out as excuses for allowing LTE-U to use the same bandwidth are different in one very significant way: they ALL obey the Part 15 rules for the use of the spectrum. Those cable modem WiFi hotspots that are popping up don't have 100' towers and special high-power transmitters. Those Zigbee etc. systems for power monitoring etc. play well with others.
The other commercial difference is that those systems you talk a
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? LTE-U will have to abide by the same Part 15 rules exactly. Did anyone claim anything different?
If it is to have any range at all and be useful in any way, it will have to use more power than Part 15 allows. Otherwise it will just be yet another short-range WiFi service, which we already have. Why should it replace WiFi? If it isn't supposed to replace it, then don't put it in the same frequencies.
Why would the user find his phone unusable?
You're right. The phone will tell the cell that it is having trouble and that will prompt a fix for the cell. It will be the WiFi and bluetooth users who are stuck. Or gosh, the cell will have some magic t
Re: (Score:2)
Any intentional RF radiator sold in the United States has to pass through FCC certification before it can be sold/bought/deployed.
I know that, and that's why I said the FCC should put its foot down to stop this.
LTE-U small cells will be certified under Part 15 rules.
And in other places you tell us that LTE-U is a combination of a licensed channel with an unlicensed one. How can it be Part 15 if it is using cellular licensed channels that are covered by Part 22? The story keeps changing.
And a Wi-Fi ISP like Boingo that blankets an airport with Wi-Fi access point is only trying to improve the UX for their own customers and not anyone else. So what's your point?
That Qualcomm -- YOU -- are creating a system that is deliberately incompatible with the existing WiFi users so that WiFi users are impacted to give your cell customers that wonderful "UX". That Qualcomm
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about drowning out other people's?
I realize that reading the fine article is a lost art here, but it was even mentioned in the summary, for God's sake. Here, from TFA:
What do you think "reduce the throughput" means? And what happens when there is more than one to
Re: (Score:2)
Lte-u uses listen before talk.
The power limits are the same as for anyone else.
If I put my WiFi router at the top of a 100' cell tower, I would be amaz
Re: (Score:2)
LTE-U does NOT use listen before talk unless there's been a recent change in the protocol. It, just like normal LTE, is centrally scheduled. There are some vendor specific and non-standardized version of LTE that can do listen before talk, but that's not the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wrong. The "TFA" is wrong. That's why that article is doing such a disservice to its readers. The CSAT algorithm in LTE-U small cells first begins by listening for other Wi-Fi access points transmitting in its vicinity. It is in fact able to listen not just to "energy" being transmitted on a given frequency - it is in fact able to receive and decode Wi-Fi beacons. If it find a channel with no existing occupants, it'll just use it. But if it has to share, it listens to determine the number of existing occup
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, I'd be scared to death to use LTE-U for my cellphone because it's extremely unclear that it would NOT be subject to interference of some sort, and that's rather disquieting should someone need to call 911...
LTE-U works by providing two connections - one in licensed and one in unlicensed. Your phone would be connected to both at all times. The phone sends back measurements of the quality of the unlicensed connection back to the LTE small cell. If the LTE small cell sees reports that the unlicensed connection is degrading due to interference, it'll allocate you more bandwidth from the licensed connection instead. That's why LTE-U is such a powerful concept. Capacity and bandwidth from unlicensed when it makes se
This is my I hard-wire important things (Score:2)
.
If the wireless carriers want to continue to suck up public bandwidth, I think they should at least stick to their promises of deploying fiber where they said they would (Verizon, can you hear me n
How exactly do they plan to "deploy"? (Score:1)
With the low EIRP limits in the 2.4GHz ISM band, they would have to get really close, and deploy millions of transmitters. How do they plan to do that?
I'm from Qualcomm - AMA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell do I deploy this in my home without breaking wifi and without issuing my own SIM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it's an ITU/3GPP/esqu spec for a protocol and I'm not allowed to deploy it in an unlicensed band, but carriers who already have exclusive access to licensed spectrum are?
Could you explain how the LTE frame structure is compatible with part 15? I don't quite see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I know the rules. I was a member of the 802.11 and 802.16 working groups and Bluetooth sig that developed these unlicensed band protocols and I've developed WiFi, WiMax and Bluetooth products. Having a protocol that bangs out a base station frame structure like LTE which splats on the band and has no backoff for other users of the band isn't part 15 compliant without being at a power that isn't useful for high speed data communications.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of duty cycling, and/or other forms of "mitigation" I fail to see how occupying the same frequencies as our Wi-Fi routers can do anything other than steal capacity.
You are right - occupying the same frequency as an incumbent Wi-Fi router would reduce its throughput. No one is saying otherwise. But that would be true if you were adding another Wi-Fi access point, or any other radiator on the same frequency. The question becomes: for those operators that want to use unlicensed spectrum to increase the capacity of their networks, should they use Wi-Fi, or should they use LTE-U? Does LTE-U have any more of an impact on incumbent Wi-Fi than adding Wi-Fi instead?
The answer
Re: (Score:1)
What are the ranges on the LTE-U base stations?
Similar range to Wi-Fi access points operating in the 5GHz band, since they have to abide by the same power output limitations set by the FCC.
What is the plan to deploy them?
Plan is to deploy them in high congestion areas like airports, malls, parks, busy street corners, etc.
How much of the unlicensed spectrum does it utilize, and is it in 2.4 or 5 ghz ranges.
A single LTE-U channel is only 20MHz wide. Up to two channels can be utilized, for up to 40MHz of bandwidth. All of this is only in the 5GHz band - LTE-U will not use the 2.4GHz band at all. There is 555 MHz of spectrum in the 5GHz band according to the FCC. [fcc.gov]
umm (Score:2)
Be in no doubt.. (Score:2)
that this is an attempt to kill wifi and have LTE take over so you must use carrier moderated sessions for all you communications along with crap crypto.
Perfect for Theaters! (Score:2)
As if I didn't have enough to worry about! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh - Suck it up kids... string some wire. Etherne (Score:2)
Wifi has sucked anywhere except maybe in the sticks ever since it became popular anyway. Sure, I used to love it as much as anybody. These days it drops or crawls 9 times out of 10 at my home and isn't much better in the homes of many of my family and friends, scattered across various cities. There is just too much interference already!
Suck it up kids... string some wire. Ethernet still rocks!
I only use wifi for handheld portable devices. But... the only such device that I use with any frequency is my pho
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> it'll provide additional capacity boost that improves the UX for all users
No. For the ones who aren't having their WiFi shat upon. This is pure evil.
Re: (Score:3)
LTE-U is not a wide coverage technology.
At the frequencies in use no LTE is "wide coverage". That's why there are so many cell towers all over the place. Just as "many hands make light work", "many cell towers make wide coverage".
The LTE-U small cell would not be able to transmit at power levels higher than is allowed by the FCC,
That power level should be 0, or as close to it as possible under the unintentional radiator standards of commercial electronics.
But so what? You put one "small cell" here, you put another one there, you put another one next to that, and eventually you're covering a broad area with signals in an already overpopulated
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It offers greater network capacity, and thus by extension, better user throughputs.
For the cellular data customer. It does this at the expense of the private citizen using unlicensed spectrum for his personal WiFi router. This is "better user throughputs" in Qualcom-speak, being spoken by a Qualcom employee who is probably being paid to post here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're at an airport and you try to use your phone as a mobile hotspot, the Boingo or iPass Wi-Fi routers in the airport will cause interference with your personal hotspot.
For God's sake, stop. Existing WiFi services don't deliberately interfere with each other by using a different protocol that doesn't LBT or uses a shorter transmit gap. Everyone's equal, but apparently Qualcomm wants us to believe that they are more equal than others and it's just peachy keen ok if Qualcomm uses a protocol that doesn't follow the same fairness rules that everyone else does in a license-free public frequency band.
If Boingo started putting up WiFi access points that grabbed as much bandwidt
Re: (Score:1)
It's a telco-only technology, because the control channel uses licensed spectrum. That means you can't roll your own, and consequently the telco can charge for the use of public spectrum. When in doubt, the reason is money.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the contexts for which I am familiar there is a bit of a difference. They are offering communication services wherein little to no contention exists. Take the local coffee shop for instance. Their Wi-Fi hotspot--which are usually free anyway--is the only available means of getting on the Internet unless you have a cellular modem and a supporting data plan. The same goes for airports, airplanes, city buses, commuter trains, etc. even if they charge a fee to connect it is a wholly fair use. Moreover,
Re: (Score:3)
There is absolutely no need for cellular operators to start intruding on unlicensed spectrum. If this truly is about "fair sharing of a shared asset," then when can I expect an equivalent amount of spectrum to be opened in
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference of perspective between two groups of people. On one side you have user's of Wi-Fi for Internet access, as well as amateur radio operators. Then you have corporate interests, particularly the cellular carriers. The former are given over to the belief that the unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4 and 5GHz band were set aside for their use while the latter having fat wallets can "buy their own damn spectrum". After all they wouldn't share their's even if asked "pretty please." Then you have
Re: (Score:1)
Behind my TV? RTFM. I said the actual modem/router that provides the Wi-Fi signal.
But, good point, you could also invest in wall art that is foil-backed on the side where the LTE-U tower is located.
Re: (Score:2)
Behind my TV? RTFM. I said the actual modem/router that provides the Wi-Fi signal.
Unlike a lightbulb affixed to the wall with a handy reflector behind it to direct its "signal" in the desired direction and the receiver is completely passive, a useful WiFi system consists of at least two parts: the router and the device with which it is communicating.
Your router may be out in the open where you can put a cute box with craftwork art on it to shield it from interfering signals, but the WiFi dongle on the TV will be where the TV is. The WiFi antenna for the cellphone will be somewhere in t
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I have Wi-Fi on my TV?
No, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I have Wi-Fi on my TV?
I could not care less why you would have WiFi on your TV.
Other people, however, make use of WiFi to connect their TV into the household network. It's easier and neater than running a wire. My TV, for example, can get weather and stock info off the net, as well as play streaming video and music. And it's the same reason that some PCs come with WiFi adapters built in -- to avoid having to run a wire.
The original discussion wasn't about a WiFi adapter on your TV, however, it was about someone you were tell
Re: (Score:2)
I don't.
Then you want to pay a cellular provider for data to those devices, or just don't care about having data to them. Fine. That's how you want your life. I don't care.
Now ask me why you don't have 100 Gbps streaming in your house?
My house is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. I don't need 100Gbps "streaming" for anything I'll ever do. I also don't have a problem running a network wire to my TV, so we're not talking about my house to begin with.
I DO, however, have a problem running a CAT5e network cable to either of my cellphones, only one of which is on a cell service
Re: (Score:2)
Behind my TV?
On /. he should have included a car, but his point was an analogy.
RTFM
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:1)
Valid point.
Maybe a combination?
Re: (Score:3)
No, you cannot. Part 15 has some very specific language about intentional interference. You might want to read the regulations before pointing a dish at someone else's tower without having another dish to receive it on the other side. I'd further say that using a dish is about the worst way to do this, since the signal would be highly concentrated at the ranges you can legally push 2.4 GHz (~60 dBm) it will be very obvious that you're intentionally interfering with someone else's signal.