Why would somebody want this over wifi? And what spectrum are they using? They can't just camp on allocated spectrum, right?
Mike
The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum.
The spectrum is CBRS and there are MANY benefits to 5G over Wifi, including but not limited to guaranteed spectrum.
For the 3rd tier I assume that works pretty much like wifi spectrum, right? It seems to be at about 3.5Ghz so that would be pretty short distance. Other than handoff what other advantages does it have over wifi (can wifi do seamless l2 handoff these days?)
Mike
There is no guaranteed spectrum in CBRS without a PAL. That auction has come and gone, but the license holders may rent out channels in time (this is expected to happen).
Wifi handoff is 802.11r.
Except there is spectrum available which is not subject to PAL, and for an inbuilding system with low power, there are specific exemptions that make it almost guaranteed when requested properly from the SAS.
Shane
What do you mean 3rd Tier?
What do you mean 3rd Tier?
General Authorized Access? Taken from some random site looking it up.
Mike
My assumption was that he meant GAA.
What makes it different is once you’ve been allocated spectrum, which for in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so it’s guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those frequencies.
Shane
What makes it different is once you've been allocated spectrum, which for in-building use is almost guaranteed, no one else can use that spectrum, so it's guaranteed. Unlike Wifi, where any device can transmit in those frequencies.
If it's in premise would that really matter much? I mean if I tried to set up an AP in an Amazon warehouse I assume they wouldn't be too happy about that.
Mike
Happy, no, but it wouldn’t be illegal. And if they are building their warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone was competing for bandwidth.
The policy functions and timing interval of a cellular network are also far superior to wifi.
tir. 30. nov. 2021 22.09 skrev Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>:
Happy, no, but it wouldn’t be illegal. And if they are building their warehouse automation based on wifi, it would surely be a problem if someone was competing for bandwidth.
In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices.
For comparison, consider that many city train systems are operating signaling using wifi equipment.
Regards
Baldur
In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices.
Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a pineapple turned up to 11 that’s washing out all the normal wifi spectrum.
It would be illegal to do that with CBRS.
Opps,
Replied direct this is a bit one sided of the conversation but I want to make certain the community is clear on this as CBRS is a valuable spectrum.
Unfortunately Shane this is incorrect. GAA is not significantly different then any unlicensed spectrum as to interference avoidance. But the SAS will typically have tools that will give you some info on how to avoid channels already in use. This is truly useful.
As a CBRS GAA user, i can understand your confusion, When a SAS (Spectrum Access System) states a channel is “free” that just means it is not currently in use by a higher priority user such as an incumbent or PAL user. Any GAA can request a channel in use in the area by another GAA. You have no interference protection rights as a GAA / 3rd tier user. Again the SAS can and should assist you with finding a clean channel and potently working as a mediator between GAA users but there is no guarantee or protections.
This might be helpful. @10:10 this video from google SAS’s tech team talks about this very thing.
tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>:
In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices.
Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a pineapple turned up to 11 that’s washing out all the normal wifi spectrum.
If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any case.
It would be illegal to do that with CBRS.
On the other hand, saboteurs rarely care about legal and can easily jam either system.
And yet, this is simply not a real problem. Did you know that a larger number of train transit systems are controlled by WiFi? Block that WiFi signal and the trains stop city wide. But has this ever happened?
Regards
Baldur
I’m sorry Anthony, but you are just plain wrong. You do not have protection rights which means that people can infringe, but the SAS will only provide you a channel that others haven’t already been granted. This is very different from protection rights which are guaranteed to higher class users. If this were the case, there would be no need for a SAS registration in the GAA space as it would be a free for all.
And because it is still considered licensed spectrum, using it without being properly granted a channel is illegal, unlike unlicensed wifi.
Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via Wifi, I find that very interesting.
Shane
He's talking about CBTC running on 2.4Ghz band for DCS. And yes he is right, numerous metro subway systems use this.
For heavy rail deployments, ETCS Level 2 uses GSM-R.
James
My understanding is those systems require very little bandwidth, so barring a full “jam” of the full spectrum, it can still operate.
This is not the same use case as most private 5G implementations.
Shame