To: Dexter Lives On who wrote (19478 ) 4/10/2002 8:57:18 PM From: 49thMIMOMander Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 34857 Thanks, Trudeau, but don't ask me to spell Rouauesseaouou, the father of even educating poor girls like Emile (also enlightned buddy of Jefferson, but some problems with sexuality, earlier for just one of them, now more mutual). The quote, still alive and well in finland, is something like "sleeping in the same bed as an elephant", some around here used to add "schizofrenic", "paranoid", etc,etc elephant. Anyway, legally a "hotspot" might mean one or many 100m areas, and I am sure if just one is installed, hooked up, and there are handsets available, there will be more WLAN bases tations fairly soon. The "funnny" thing is that as the density of WLAN stations and users increase, the problem of "connecting them", avoiding interference, becomes more and more like a regular 3-4G network. Which is why, IMO, "both" are needed, Ilmarinen Repeating some additional local stuff - one popular guy pointed out that the 3G cost of UK and germany could have been used to drop one WLAN base station for every 100meter in both license areas, from 2-3 airplanes, in just one year, even without trying to avoid any lakes nor most of the surrounding atlantic. - another asked what would be the cost of hooking them up?? - the local WLAN IP provider run into stuff like the 11Mbps-for-free kids starting using 1 meter satellite parabolas with yagi antennas as "microheads" to get just a little "better signal", lesser packet loss than the neighbor kid, end result seem to be that the lost packets are just bounced higher and higher all over the sky and ether. (works great for 3-10 users, but not for 100-500, when the business might start producing positive cashflow) - european terrestrial digital TV is standardized to use both FSK, QAM and OFDMA, another factor in the whole wireless ether. That is, someone just have to "connect" them all. Ilmarinen