First of all, IMT-2000/3G was about getting more spectrum, moreso than enhancing capacity in existing bands.
You've made that great point before and it still hasn't sunk in yet.
Remember that Bluetooth has a 100m option, and many thought it would become a LAN, so 2.5G/3G/Bluetooth was an operator-controlled '3G WAN'.
I'd never thought of it that way but that makes perfect sense.
>> FTTH test sites should provide some insights as to value added by wireless.<<
Meaning '4G' wireless?
I was suggesting that in a perfect (test) neighborhood, with everyone having FTTH/FTTC, what value would wireless add, no matter the interface type. My take is that widely distributed FO will increase the demand for wireless connections, not decrease it. Adding traffic alone has been shown to not add economic value to networks, but big pipes would increase opportunities to offer the sort of applications people will pay for (entertainment, education, transaction-oriented,...), imho.
>>Anyone ever see results from NTT's Biportable experiment?<<
The principle investigator has resumed attending IEEE 802 meetings, and may be in Dallas next week. I will ask.
Thanks Peter.
Rob |
