Soon You'll Be Able To Build Your Own 4G Network Over Wi-Fi Frequencies

Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler writes: An industry consortium called MulteFire wants to help you build your own LTE-like network that uses the Wi-Fi spectrum, with no need for carriers or providers, writes Andy Patrizio. Just don't expect to get started today. "In its basic specification, MulteFire Release 1.0 defines an LTE-like network that can run entirely on unlicensed spectrum frequencies. The alliance didn't try to do too much with the 1.0 spec; it simply wanted to get it out the door so partners and manufacturers could begin adoption. For 1.0, the alliance focused on the 5-GHz band. More functionality and more spectrums will be supported in future specs." Why would you want it? As Patrzio explains, MulteFire's target audience is fairly obvious: anyone who needs speed, scalability, and security beyond what Wi-Fi offers. "MulteFire is enabling cellular technologies to run in unassigned spectrum, where they are free to use it so long as they follow the rules of the spectrum band," says Mazen Chmaytelli, president of the MulteFire Alliance." Is this something you think would make a difference?
The alliance includes Qualcomm and Cisco Systems, and the article points out some advantages. LTE cell towers "can be miles apart versus Wi-Fi's range of just a few feet. Plus, LTE's security has never been breached, as far as we know."

Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I can get subscribers, overcharge them, treat them like crap and they'll say, "Thank you sir! May I have another!"

I'll myself AP&P or Borizon or C-Mobile or something.

Our motto: "Fuck the customer!"

And if any employee doesn't like it, well, it won't matter because we're still gonna offshore/outsource your job to H1-bs!!!

It's good to be (corporate) King!

Re:

[JustOK]

I sense ... an annoyance towards ... something.

Re: Sweet!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This proposal appears to be an attempt to change that; but the original LTE-in-ISM-bands spec has a really nasty, though admittedly rather clever, trick: this"LTE-U" moves some or all of the data channel into unlicensed spectrum; but the spec mandates that the control channel be in a licensed band. Probably not entirely without technical reason(a control channel subject to fewer sources of interference is likely more reliable and predictable); but means that only someone who controls at least some licensed

uh... stingray breaks LTE security constantly

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sure the cell tower owners would argue that their cell towers were not technically compromised.... but those cell towers are only there to serve users who were forced to trust the towers.... that trust is part of the security... that trust is what was compromised by spoof towers to extract end user information.

LTE security has obviously and admittedly been breached.

Re: uh... stingray breaks LTE security constantly

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Also, has WiFi security been breached since the bad old days of WEP? That was a disaster, no arguing otherwise(though earlier cellular standards are also a mess); but it was my understanding that WPA2 only gets 'breached' because they include the consumer-friendly PSK option and a lot of lousy passwords are used; while PSK with good passwords, or the annoying-to-set-up, but actually robust, 'enterprise' flavors have been pretty solid. Telcos deserve credit for being one of the few network environments whe

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

so, be ready for it next time.... create your own spin stories with "scientists" who can "prove" that the allergy is not caused by the WiFi signal, but is instead caused by the interference between WiFi and the big boys monster goliath signal. get a scientist to claim there is no other reason for certain aspects of the big boys protocols other than to stimulate these allergic reactions when it reacts with competition.

WiFi is the safe, local, healthy option. the big boys are giving us all a rash on purpo

No, you wont

[Anonymous Coward]

This is LTE LAA/LTE Advance. The carriers -of course- did think of that, they dont like competition. *They* can run 4G on ISM frequencys, but you can't, because the phone will only use them after connecting on the licensed spectrum...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's a good thing

[93 Escort Wagon]

... that existing 5Ghz wifi bands never get congested or oversubscribed, amirite?

Re: umm...

[Brockmire]

An LTE base station has WAY better transmitter and receiver than the clients. They also use high gain antennas. We're talking multiple watts vs the clients.

Give us more spectrum!

[SuricouRaven]

How hard can it be to get the ITU and all major world governments to agree... ooh, right.

Not a good Neighbour

[Brockmire]

How can a protocol designed for exclusive use of spectrum follow the rules of 5Ghz? That fucks over both the LTE and WiFi since it's a shared spectrum. Nobody needs scalability in their homes. This is a very dumb idea.

Re:

[FrankHaynes]

Interference to the carriers' uplinks is a constant problem. You'd be amazed at the unlikely sources of garbage that generate spurious RF energy and apparently LTE needs pristine spectrum to work.

Still, WiFi is not designed for streaming data so good luck getting this to work at an acceptable level for John Q. Schmoe.

Re: Not a good Neighbour

[Brockmire]

English, please.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Not a good Neighbour

[Brockmire]

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In WiFi, it's listen before talking, so you talk when someone else isn't. This is sharing the spectrum. The more an AP is active, the less available talk time for everyone. You have issues with noise and retries due to hidden node, where a client doesn't know another client is transmitting. Plugging in an AP on the same channel but not actively used would impact very little (a few microseconds every ~100ms). Plugging in an LTE bae station on same frequenc

Re: Not a good Neighbour

[Brockmire]

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. WiFi is like a hub, not Ethernet switch. Going to dual AP on two frequencies would be the Ethernet switch equivalent. A switch with 4 ports could have two independent, simultaneous conversations between 4 parties. Single AP WiFi cannot. Minimizing hidden node problem is as simple as using RTS/CTS at trade off of increased overhead. 11ac wave2 is a better step than LTE.

Sounds like a crap idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a maximum transmission power allowed which differs per country but is typically low power, for short range usage. Anything higher and you need a license. Yeah I read the article and whilst security is a topic they tout range and bandwidth too. Just on those topics what is the fucking point, especially when it will be low power, when we already have wifi for this purpose.

You'll still need normal wifi to support all your gadgets that don't adopt this betamax idea, meaning more wifi congestion on your

Bit of disinformation going on here.

[Computershack]

LTE cell towers "can be miles apart versus Wi-Fi's range of just a few feet.

A friend of mine uses a trunk radio system with linked sites utilising 5GHz wifi (Ubiquity gear for those interested) for the inter site control channel data link. The sites are over 40 miles apart. Of course LTE sites can be miles apart if you're putting them on a tower and the range would be greater than a wifi router in your house because at those frequencies communications effectively works on clear line of sight. Put those LTE transmitters in your house and the range would be no different than regular wifi.

Re:

[dohzer]

One, two, skip a few, 100ft. I guess that's still just a few.

Re:

[hankwang]

A bit of apples and oranges. Wifi is restricted to max 20 mW or so with an omnidirectional antenna, less if you use a directional antenna. Telecom uses higher power (250 mW on the phone from a quick Google) and uses high-gain directional antennas at the cell tower. You would't be allowed to use such high powers in the unlicensed wifi band.

Re:

[pak9rabid]

Wifi is restricted to max 20 mW or so with an omnidirectional antenna, less if you use a directional antenna.

Well that's just simply untrue. [amazon.com]

Re:

[kiminator]

Here [air802.com] are the actual power limits from the FCC, as of 2015. It's a little complicated, but overall 1W is the maximum output power allowed for Wi-Fi.

Either way, my bet is that the range of this technology would be quite short, far shorter than current cellular networks which operate at lower frequencies (meaning less attenuation) at at higher powers.

It's not like 4G is inherently better

[Casandro]

It's larger cells mostly come from being able to use higher powers. That advantage will disappear for unlicensed cells.

It's probably even less secure as its more complex. The focus was more on protecting business models than protecting user data.

Bound to happen at some point

[Maritz]

You'd imagine at some point some kind of peer-to-peer ad-hoc internet will spring up as a response to government authoritarianism. The Tory dickheads in the UK, for example, couldn't be more proud of their plan to introduce a series of consumer-hostile laws that China would be legitimately jealous of. Of course they'll 'outlaw' any such tech, but depending on the details it might not be that easy. Pirate radio stations exist with impunity.

WiMax

[maelkum]

Honest question here. Wasn't WiMax the "long range WiFi" thing?

Re: WiMax

[Brockmire]

For ptp links, Wimax doesn't make sense. For long distance, Wimax in theory is better than WiFi as it's more efficient. WiFi would increase overhead due to more client collisions, whereas in Wimax there would be minimal collisions. Problem is, Wimax needs dedicated spectrum and gets killed if used on WiFi bands.

Re:

[maelkum]

I see. Thanks!

MulletFire

[trevc]

Sounds outdated to me.

Wow

[Miser]

Like 2.4ghz isn't crowded enough, and you want to start polluting 5ghz?

Do. Not. Want.