Dave wrote:
> > I have to disagree. 3G to me means a third generation network:
> > currently being
> > implemented as either cdma2000 or wCDMA.
> > I don't consider it a particularly fuzzy issue.
>
> Actually, after I wrote my last thing, I read the latest Scientific
> American articles on mobile internet, and CDMA and whatnot, and I agree that
> you could say 3G is signified by the bandwidth.
> However it's not very meaningful if you can't do anything with that
> bandwidth. So if you're phone can't stream video or play MP3s, then what's
> the point?
The point in VOICE. DoCoMo needs new bandwidth to cover increasing voice demands,
which are already blowing away the current PDC voice network.
>
> In any case, what I gathered from the articles is that 3G may be a little
> disappointing. The megabytes per second will actually translate into only
> about 64kbps after all the overhead and sharing of cells between users is
> taken into account.
> (Scientific American, "The Third Generation Gap", page 54 of the October
> 2000 issue)
>
Yup. Reality is maybe 384 kpbs in a perfect lab-like situation. Realistically? 64,
maybe 128 at launch.
r e n
--
ascii: r e n f i e l d
octal: \162 \145 \156 \146 \151 \145 \154 \144
hex: \x72 \x65 \x6e \x66 \x69 \x65 \x6c \x64
morgan stanley dean witter japan
e-business technologies | engineering and strategy
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
-- File: smime.p7s
-- Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Wed Nov 8 10:33:30 2000