It is, but QAM1024 is supposedly going to be "a thing" in wifi soon too. I suspect the times you'll be able to take advantage of it are going to be TINY. QAM256 already is pretty easy to "upset" and bump you further down the encoding scheme in 2.4 and 5GHz.
Still, with LTE, I assume you'll pretty much need line-of-site to the antenna and probably also need to be fairly close (a mile or so?)
It's also nice to finally see VoLTE/WiFi integration. When I was first reading about the architecture of LTE, I saw the potential for carrier-independent (by carrier I mean cellular vs. WiFi) data routing of LTE presence and call data. The actual cellular LTE towers are just another dumb network your phone creates a 'VPN' to the carrier's LTE backbone over.. that 'VPN' could be carried over a number of mediums, including WiFi.
If Qualcomm and the carriers REALLY want aggressive WiFi handoff, the single most useful thing they could do is to create some sort of STANDARDIZED (ie part of the WiFi spec) mechanism for one-time-only authentication. Pretty much every public WiFi network I know of, every time I connect to the damn thing, requires me either to "log in" (eg provide my library card number) or to click "accept" on some long list of rules and restrictions for the network. The net result of this crap is that, unless I have some good reason for doing so, I'm usually just not going to bother to go through that dance. One time is acceptable, but if I have to do it every damn time I want to connect to the network, ain't gonna happen.
A second, related issue, is that phones need to stop advertising WiFi networks that are patently broken (or so damn slow that they might as well be broken). Don't show me that a network is publicly available until you've actually run some test through it, connected back to MS Central (or Google Central or Apple Central), and determined acceptable performance. I'm not interested in going into a shopping center to see what looks like 20 open networks, 10 of which don't work, 5 of which actually use some sort of alternative password mechanism, and four of the remaining five are so slow as to be useless.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
Back to Article
rpg1966 - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
Love it. It's incredible that QAM256 can even be a thing; the timing and signal strength tolerances etc required are mind-boggling.azazel1024 - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
It is, but QAM1024 is supposedly going to be "a thing" in wifi soon too. I suspect the times you'll be able to take advantage of it are going to be TINY. QAM256 already is pretty easy to "upset" and bump you further down the encoding scheme in 2.4 and 5GHz.Still, with LTE, I assume you'll pretty much need line-of-site to the antenna and probably also need to be fairly close (a mile or so?)
maxgo - Tuesday, March 3, 2015 - link
much closer with small cellsAraemo - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
"With call handful – or as Qualcomm likes to call it, Call Continuity"I think you mean "call handoff".
Araemo - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
It's also nice to finally see VoLTE/WiFi integration. When I was first reading about the architecture of LTE, I saw the potential for carrier-independent (by carrier I mean cellular vs. WiFi) data routing of LTE presence and call data. The actual cellular LTE towers are just another dumb network your phone creates a 'VPN' to the carrier's LTE backbone over.. that 'VPN' could be carried over a number of mediums, including WiFi.djvita - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
and arstechnica just tested cat 9 lte in a section stadium in london. this tech is 3 years away for the carriers. this explains their high costs.....name99 - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
If Qualcomm and the carriers REALLY want aggressive WiFi handoff, the single most useful thing they could do is to create some sort of STANDARDIZED (ie part of the WiFi spec) mechanism for one-time-only authentication.Pretty much every public WiFi network I know of, every time I connect to the damn thing, requires me either to "log in" (eg provide my library card number) or to click "accept" on some long list of rules and restrictions for the network. The net result of this crap is that, unless I have some good reason for doing so, I'm usually just not going to bother to go through that dance. One time is acceptable, but if I have to do it every damn time I want to connect to the network, ain't gonna happen.
A second, related issue, is that phones need to stop advertising WiFi networks that are patently broken (or so damn slow that they might as well be broken). Don't show me that a network is publicly available until you've actually run some test through it, connected back to MS Central (or Google Central or Apple Central), and determined acceptable performance. I'm not interested in going into a shopping center to see what looks like 20 open networks, 10 of which don't work, 5 of which actually use some sort of alternative password mechanism, and four of the remaining five are so slow as to be useless.
shadarlo - Tuesday, March 3, 2015 - link
Agree with everything you said completely. If these would be worked on it would greatly enhance the experience of all mobile users.