I was wondering how long this would take to make the list. I just sent an email about this to a colleague, so I happen to have an opinion at the ready.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- There are two reasons I don't expect this to be a problem. First is business models. Nobody chooses their university because of the Wi-Fi performance, but people choose their wireless service provider (WSP) based on network performance. As such, network performance is likely more important to WSPs than it is to us. Interference is inherently mutual, so WSP's don't want to be in the same band with us any more than we want to be in the same band with them. Second, is path loss. 5GHz signal attenuates quickly in free space, and even more quickly through heavy obstacles, such as exterior walls of buildings. If you consider these two factors, then WSP's can't make wide use of LTE-U for pervasive coverage because it's not cost effective, and they can't use it in close proximity to Wi-Fi because it's unreliable. Why then are they expanding in this direction? For use in small cells to cover a high-density areas that the macro network has trouble serving. Right now, small cells can be a challenge to deploy where there is already a dense macro network, because they have to use the same licensed bands for both technologies. If all available carriers in an area are already used, it's difficult to add capacity because of increased interference. Using unlicensed spectrum avoids these problem. Also, the areas where they typically install these small cells don't often have strong Wi-Fi coverage, and if they do, only one or two of the many available channels are utilized. This, combined with the high path loss between the outdoor coverage area and nearby indoor coverage means there will usually be some fairly clean channels to use for these small cells. If we ever choose to provide pervasive outdoor Wi-Fi coverage, this could be an issue, but I suspect we'll never do that. Almost everybody has a data plan, and outdoor LTE coverage is pretty good and improving all the time. We should provide Wi-Fi for indoor use, and let people use the cell network outside. We would do much better to provide site-licensed VPN software for smart phones and tablets at $100K annually rather than $5M per year to provide outdoor Wi-Fi that stops at the edge of campus. If things play out this way, using 5GHz for LTE instead of Wi-Fi would be to everybody's advantage. One reason Wi-Fi doesn't work optimally is because much end user equipment (EUE) behaves badly and we attempt to accommodate all EUE. The WSP's can make far better use of the spectrum because they only allow EUE that's built to their specifications. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Let the debate begin! Chuck Enfield Manager, Wireless Systems & Engineering Telecommunications & Networking Services The Pennsylvania State University 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 ph: 814.863.8715 fx: 814.865.3988 -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trent Hurt Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] LTE can mooch off of Wi-Fi spectrum with new Qualcomm chipset | PCWorld http://www.pcworld.com/article/2889792/lte-can-mooch-off-of-wifi-spectrum- with-new-qualcomm-chipset.html ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
