Message #2257 from A.J. Mullen at Jun 19, 2002 12:45 PM:
>... 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.
Definitely not true. The capacity of a cell site is eminently improvable over many orders of magnitude by the application of capital investment. Even when the best technology is used (and it does cost more than the second best technology because the market will always bear that), capacity is still adjustable. The expandability ranges from adding call-handling capacity within used spectrum, to adding or moving spectrum to more efficient schemes (AMPS channels being turned off to make room for CDMA channels in US Cellular networks, adding additional CDMA channels in owned-but-not-used spectrum for US PCS carriers). But from there on up, the move from IS-95 to CDMA2000 doubles spectrum. From there up, more advanced antenna systems on base stations can add capacity. Finally, more expensive dual-antenna phones can increase system capacity.
>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.
This may be almost true, but I don't think it is true yet. As long as both 1X and IS-95 infrastructure are both available, THE PRICE OF 1X WILL BE KEPT HIGHER reflecting the fact that it is just worth more. Now it could be that minimal installations of 1X will be chosen over IS-95 installations, but this will just move the pricing point between these two choices. Eventually you will probably be right, there will be no IS-95 supply left and it will just be too low a volume product to justify keeping it going, but I doubt we are at that point yet.
IMHO as always.
To the moon,
Ralph |
