It’s frankly the Google and Big Cable way to slow-roll the progress of consumer-oriented technology they don’t like.
Case in point: The proposed deployment of LTE-Unlicensed (LTE-U).
{mosads}LTE-U is a technology designed to give consumers a more seamless and secure mobile experience. It creates a new option in the unlicensed space that will help alleviate traffic on increasingly crowded licensed networks. The unlicensed portion of the service – the “U” – is used only as a backup when traffic requires supplemental downlink support. Developed by the wireless industry amidst an impending spectrum crunch, LTE-U presents another much needed competitive and innovative solution in the data hungry mobile marketplace.
But this threatens Google’s and Big Cable’s Wi-Fi-dependent business models. Consequently, for more than a year they have manufactured the false narrative that LTE-U will somehow undermine the unlicensed commons by “unfairly” interfering with Wi-Fi signals. In fact, they are so upset with this new competitive disruption that they have run to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) through the Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) and others to demand (and I paraphrase):
Dear FCC,
Though innovation in unlicensed spectrum developed organically through industry standards-setting mechanisms and the marketplace – not your help or design – we order you to step in and deny the certification of LTE-U products until we’re satisfied (that they no longer pose a competitive threat to us).
Ironically, their demands directly contradict the FCC’s decision years ago to make unlicensed spectrum available for any and all to use for the development of new mobile technologies.
This is a shame.
Unlicensed spectrum has been a hotbed for mobile innovation, home to a myriad of devices and technologies beyond Wi-Fi including Bluetooth, baby monitors, and near-field communication (NFC). LTE-U developers depend on unlicensed products to satisfy their customers’ needs, meaning unreasonable interference via LTE-U is a non-starter for them. Further, the developers have gone out of their way to prove their technology works well with others. They have performed numerous tests, which not only show that LTE-U and Wi-Fi can coexist, but that LTE-U can actually improve Wi-Fi. And, most importantly, they have worked in earnest with WFA to develop an independent test plan to further confirm “fair play.”
Not surprisingly, however, WFA testing has been stuck in neutral for a year.
Last August, the WFA ostensibly embarked on creating that testbed. But since then, WFA critical dates have come and gone, and we’re still not even close to beta testing according to a finalized WFA plan.
The latest delay? Wi-Fi’s most remote (non-standard) signals might have a hard time reaching users when LTE-U is in use, slowing consensus movement on the testing process.
The ironic thing here is that approving unlicensed devices has always been a purposefully streamlined process at the FCC, being based on minimal power, emission and radiation requirements. That is, until Google and Big Cable got involved.
Notes one frustrated LTE-U developer:
“It has been more than a year since the Wi-Fi Alliance announced that it was creating a cooperative process to evaluate coexistence between LTE-U and Wi-Fi devices, and the Commission has held off approving devices in anticipation of results from the process…The delay in approving LTE-U devices is stifling innovation and investment in the communications ecosystem – one of the most vibrant segments of our economy that directly affects all Americans…”
Yes, consumers are being harmed by this dalliance. The FCC should push back on WFA’s delay tactics and say enough is enough – get the tests rolling NOW! Obfuscation, delay, and excuses do not serve the Commission, or the public interest it has sworn to protect.
In an age of rapid technological change built on permission-less innovation, there is simply no excuse for this slow-rolled “process.”
Mike Wendy is President of Media Freedom, a market-oriented, non-profit organization.
The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.