Ashley, that's not how it works. MAybe then, our difference here lies in differing beliefs concerning the scalability of the technology. My suspicion is that while a single cell site might be improved, by using some of the tricks you suggest, its capacity is essentially fixed for any single slice of spectrum. 1X was introduced later because it wasn't available sooner, if it had been available initially, it's cheap enough that it would have been installed from day one. The density of real-time users is the primary determinant of the density of stations needed.
Geometry makes scaling by adding stations particularly difficult. Choose your capacity and that determines the number of stations you need. You'll want the stations roughly uniformly spaced. A year or two later, if you want, say 15%, more capacity, then you have a problem: you can't just add 15% more capacity and still have a uniform distribution. (If I had used 25% in my example I would have been wrong, you could maintain uniformity by adding one site in the centre of each existing square of four.)
Note, I'm discussing capacity at maximum usage, so the breathability of stations doesn't come into the discussion here. In practice that must complicate the life of network designers: get the design right for most of teh time and there will be gaps at maximum usage, or get it right for busy times and there's much redundancy. Yes, I know this is another argument for dynamic pricing. Please see my first post in this round as to why I like Leap's price structure.
I do agree with you, in general, about dynamic pricing. Remember my parking meter proposal? Did you know the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone (once known as Red Ken), has introduced a toll for Central London? My only disappointment is that the fee is not high enough to dissuade many.
Now, I have some work to do.
Ashley |
