To: Rajala who wrote (16621 ) 10/16/1998 3:44:00 AM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
Rajala, WLL is more spectrally efficient than mobile due to no soft handoff need. So less infrastructure per terminal. No battery; you just plug a terminal into a power point and you are in business; if no power point, a photovoltaic or other electrical source. No sudden fading, so power control is easy [you don't drive a house under a bridge], you can pile a lot more data through so Web connection will be economic whereas Mobile data rates are hugely lower even in cdma2000 [ignoring the vapourware copy by L M Ericsson]. It provides a way past the last mile monopoly. It is being bought in Mauritius, a wonderful mystical land in the middle of nowhere, Russia, where they don't have much money, in India where they have even less and it will be everywhere. Maybe even in my house in a year or two. With these fancy pants phased array antennae or whatever they are which point at the terminal, you get high efficiency and I suppose that is easier in fixed than mobile applications [not sure on that though - need to consult SurferM with his two stick wave function bathtub but unfortunately he is AWOL]. You might sniff at the cost of a battery, but in India, $50 is a bit of money. And every minute is expensive even at 10 cents a minute. Mobile is less important than at least having a phone somewhere. You know what they earn in India per year? They need WLL. As they get more money, they can sell their WLL terminal to a neighbour and move up to mobile. You said that anybody with money or sense goes mobile. Suppose you don't have enough to go mobile, of course you will choose WLL. You are imposing your wealthy western ways on people who have a tougher time making ends meet. I guess you don't know much about India. You bloody Poms are all the same - treat foreigners as though they are bush babies. No wonder the locals wanted independence. Mqurice [That's my understanding of WLL anyway]