EDIT:
For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based (NOT TRUE).
Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials to show different results. IMHO, Qualcomm clearly has a better arguments.
Note that the link provided in the top comment by rupellohn is old. The latest one, referred in the news link, is probably (there are multiple filings) this one: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001331188
TL;DR:
1. LTE-U has been proven to be a better neighbor to a WF AP than another WiFi AP. In other words, two WiFi APs in the same room perform worse than One WiFi AP and One LTE-U station.
2. Fairness: 2 WiFi APs should each share each have 5% airtime according to the standard, right? Wrong. Lab trials show one AP could take up to 80% +. Refer to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001104452 "Wi-Fi/LTE-U Airtime Fairness". LTE-U always gives 50% Air time to its WiFi neighbor.
3. It is more of a political argument than a technological argument now. Note that at this point LTE-U spec does not violate the regulation on unlicensed spectrum.
DISCLAIMER: I don't work for Qualcomm. But it is easy to see who has a better argument.
> For all I know, the result used by Google is mostly simulation based, whereas Qualcomm did their due diligence on simulations AND lab trials.
I find it ironic that you've been "following this technology", have quick access to Qualcomm filing links, are happy to fill in details, but couldn't be bothered to even skim Google's filing.
The Jindal and Breslin study is well written and understandable. I'd suggest reading it since you seem invested in the topic.
I confused the filing by Google with other WiFi supporters (which uses simulation results). I have read through the all the filing months ago and apology for the bad memory. I agree that Jindal and Breslin study is solid and raised a valid concern. But they were all addressed in a response though.
Now I'd love to know how others think after reading Qualcomm's filing and not just take on one side of the story.
The response was a vacuous non-response that didn't address any of the technical points. If Qualcomm provided a detailed technical response I'd love to see it.
Section 3 of Qualcomm's filing did respond to many concerns in either simple analysis and/or lab tests. For example, the concern on the impact of rate control algorithm in WiFi.
The fact that Shannon entropy is still relevant in numerous modern mathematics research is amazing.
Apart from minor typos that make him a "sloppy mathematician", he is a good educator based on my personal experience taking grad. courses from him. He's not the passionate high school STEM teacher type, but he offers great insights. I think which textbook he used is somewhat secondary. For courses he had taught before, he usually pick a standard text and teach based on the material he wrote in his blog post, including exercises.
I can see within a few years from now I would have similar moments for stopping to use facebook and twitter