Gigabit LTE

Samsung just introduced Gigabit LTE into the newest Galaxy S8 phone. This is a technology with the capability to significantly increase cellular speeds, and which make me wonder if the cellular carriers will really be rushing to implement 5G for cellphones.

Gigabit LTE still operates under the 4G standards and is not an early version of 5G. There are three components of the technology:

  • Each phone has as 4X4 MIMO antenna, which is an array of four tiny antennae. Each antenna can make a separate connection to the cell tower.
  • The network must implement frequency aggregation. Both the phone and the cell tower must be able to combine the signals from the various antennas into one coherent data path.
  • Finally, the new technology utilizes the 256 QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) protocol which can cram more data into the cellular data path.

The amount of data speeds that can be delivered to a given cellphone under this technology is going to rely on a number of different factors:

  • The nearest cell site to a customer needs to be upgraded to the technology. I would speculate that this new technology will be phased in at the busiest urban cell sites first, then to busy suburban sites and then perhaps to less busy sites. It’s possible that a cellphone could make connections to multiple towers to make this work, but that’s a challenge with 4G technology and is one of the improvements promised with 5G.
  • The amount of data speed that can be delivered is going to vary widely depending upon the frequencies being used by the cellular carrier. If this uses existing cellular data frequencies, then the speed increase will be a combination of the impact of adding four data streams together, plus whatever boost comes from using 256 QAM, less the new overheads introduced during the process of merging the data streams. There is no reason that this technology could not use the higher millimeter wave spectrum, but that spectrum will use different antennae than lower frequencies.
  • The traffic volume at a given cell site is always an issue. Cell sites that are already busy with single antennae connections won’t have the spare connections available to give a cellphone more than one channel. Thus, a given connection could consist of one to four channels at any given time.
  • Until the technology gets polished, I’d have to bet that this will work a lot better with a stationary cellphone rather than one moving in a car. So expect this to work better in downtowns, convention centers, etc.
  • And as always, the strength of a connection to a given customer will vary according to how far a customer is from the cell site, the amount of local interference, the weather and all of those factors that affect radio transmissions.

I talked to a few wireless engineers and they guessed that this technology using existing cellular frequencies might create connections as fast as a few hundred Mbps in ideal conditions. But they could only speculate on the new overheads created by adding together multiple channels of cellular signal. There is no doubt that this will speed up cellular data for a customer in the right conditions, with the right phone near the right cell site. But adding four existing cellular signals together will not get close to a gigabit of speed.

It will be interesting to see how the cellular companies market this upgrade. They could call this gigabit LTE, although the speeds are likely to fall far short of a gigabit. They could also market this as 5G, and my bet is that at least a few of them will. I recall back at the introduction of 4G LTE that some carriers started marketing 3.5G as 4G, well before there were any actual 4G deployments. There has been so much buzz about 5G now for a year that the marketing departments at the cellular companies are going to want to tout that their networks are the fastest.

It’s always an open question about when we are going to hear about this. Cellular companies run a risk in touting a new technology if most bandwidth hungry users can’t yet utilize it. One would think they will want to upgrade some critical mass of cell sites before really pushing this.

It’s also going to be interesting to see how faster cellphone speeds affect the way people use broadband. Today it’s miserable to surf the web on a cellphone. In a city environment most connections are more than 10 Mbps today, but it doesn’t feel that fast because of shortfalls in the cellphone operating systems. Unless those operating systems get faster, there might not be that much noticeable different with a faster connection.

Cellphones today are already capable of streaming a single video stream, although with more bandwidth the streaming will get more reliable and will work under more adverse conditions.

The main impediment to faster cellphones really changing user habits is the data plans of the cellular carriers. Most ‘unlimited’ plans have major restrictions on using a cellphone to tether data for other devices. It’s that tethering that could make cellular data a realistic substitute for a home landline connection. My guess is until we reach a time when there are ubiquitous mini-cell sites spread everywhere that the cellular carriers are not going to let users treat cellular data the same as landline data. Until cellphones are allowed to utilize the broadband available to them, faster cellular data speeds might not have much impact on the way we use our cellphones.

Broadband Regulation in Limbo

The recent ruling earlier this week by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit highlights the current weak state of regulations over broadband. The case is one that’s been around for years and stems from AT&T’s attempt to drive customers off of their original unlimited cellphone data plans. AT&T began throttling unlimited customers when they reached some unpublished threshold of data use, in some cases as small as 2 GB in a month. AT&T then lied to the FCC about the practice when they inquired. This case allows the FTC suit against AT&T to continue.

The ruling demonstrates that the FTC has some limited jurisdiction over common carriers like AT&T. However, the clincher came when the court ruled that the FTC only has jurisdiction over issues where the carriers aren’t engaging in common-carrier services. This particular case involves AT&T not delivering a product they promised to customers and thus falls under FTC jurisdiction. But the court made it clear that future cases that involve direct common carrier functions, such as abuse of net neutrality would not fall under the FTC.

This case clarifies the limited FTCs jurisdiction over ISPs and contradicts the FCC’s statements that the FTC is going to be able to step in and take their place on most matters involving broadband. The court has made it clear that is not the case. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai praised this court ruling and cited it as a good example of how the transition of jurisdiction to the FTC is going to work as promised. But in looking at the details of the ruling, that is not true.

This court ruling makes it clear that there is no regulatory body now in charge of direct common carrier issues. For instance, if Netflix and one of the ISPs get into a big fight about paid prioritization there would be nowhere for Netflix to turn. The FCC would refuse to hear the case. The FTC wouldn’t be able to take the case since it involves a common carrier issue. And while a court might take the case, they would have no basis on which to make a ruling. As long as the ISP didn’t break any other kinds of laws, such as reneging on a contract, a court would have no legal basis on which to rule for or against the ISPs behavior.

That means not only that broadband is now unregulated, it also means that there is no place for some body to complain against abuse by ISPs until the point where that abuse violates some existing law. That is the purest definition of limbo that I can think of for the industry.

To make matters worse, even this jumbled state of regulation is likely to more muddled soon by the courts involved in the various net neutrality suits. Numerous states have sued the FCC for various reasons, and if past practice holds, the courts are liable to put some or all of the FCC’s net neutrality decision on hold.

It’s hard to fathom what that might mean. For example, if the courts were to put the FCC’s decision to cancel Title II regulation on hold, then that would mean that Title II regulation would still be the law of the land until the net neutrality lawsuits are finally settled. But this FCC has made it clear that they don’t want to regulate broadband and they would likely ignore such a ruling in practice. The Commission has always had the authority to pick and choose cases it will accept and I’m picturing that they would refuse to accept cases that relied on their Title II regulation authority.

That would be even muddier for the industry than today’s situation. Back to the Netflix example, if Title II regulation was back in effect and yet the FCC refused to pursue a complaint from Netflix, then Netflix would likely be precluded from trying to take the issue to court. The Netflix complaint would just sit unanswered at the FCC, giving Netflix no possible remedy, or even a hearing about their issues.

The real issue that is gumming up broadband regulation is not the end of Title II regulation. The move to Title II regulation just became effective with the recent net neutrality decision and the FCCs before that had no problem tackling broadband issues. The real problem is that this FCC is washing their hands of broadband regulation, and supposedly tossed that authority to the FTC – something the court just made clear can’t work in the majority of cases.

This FCC has shown that there is a flaw in their mandate from Congress in that they feel they are not obligated to regulate broadband. So I guess the only fix will be if Congress makes the FCC’s jurisdiction, or lack of jurisdiction clear. Otherwise, we couldn’t even trust a future FCC to reverse course, because it’s now clear that the decision to regulate or not regulate broadband is up to the FCC and nobody else. The absolute worst long-term outcome would be future FCCs regulating or not regulating depending upon changes in the administration.

My guess is that AT&T and the other big ISPs are going to eventually come to regret where they have pushed this FCC. There are going to be future disputes between carriers and the ISPs are going to find that the FCC can not help them just like they can’t help anybody complaining against them. That’s a void that is going to serve this industry poorly.