On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 11:01 , Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Ken Chang wrote:
>
>> I happen to be one who don't like PHS so much, though there're
>> a lot of clever designs and it's playing a good role as "poor
>> man's WLAN".
>
> Far from it. There are a lot of issues that PHS deals with that
> WLAN systems, such as 802.11, don't.
>
> 1. Spectrum allocation: PHS has spectrum. So does WLAN. Maybe. If
> nobody nearby isn't already trying to use it for something else. Or
> someone half a kilometer away hasn't installed the wrong type of
> light bulb. If someone is screwing with PHS spectrum, the government
> will step in an stop them. If someone is screwing with 802.11
> spectrum, well, tough luck.
In principle, both PHS and WiFi have the concept of shared spectrum with
on demand dynamic channel allocation. However, WiFi has got -what- 12
channels ? while PHS has some 600 channels or so, IIRC. I would lean
myself as far out of the window as to say that PHS is most certainly far
more robust in terms of interference and devices-competing-for-channels
issues. So, yes, I'd say you're absolutely right with your assessment
there.
> There's probably even a nice little Yakuza protection racket
> in this. You want the 802.11 hub in your restaurant to keep
> working? Pay 'em to make sure that the bandwidth stays clear.
> Otherwise you'll suddenly find huge amounts of RF energy suddenly
> appearing in that part of the spectrum....
:-) :-) :-)
> 2. "Vendor attachment," for lack of a better term. I can turn
> on my Air-H" card anywhere, and I get connected to DDI pocket.
> With 802.11, when there's five access points within 100 m of
> me, God knows who I connect to. If anyone.
Yup. Little anecdote there ... in the early days of PHS, when you were
in one of the upper floors of high rise buildings -say- 20th floor
upwards, your PHS phone could easily get confused because it couldn't
figure out which base station was closest, the one on the left side of
the building or the one on the right ;-) DDI Pockets never had that
problem though because they put their bases on buildings and they have a
little more range.
> 3. Billing. PHS has established billing systems. 802.11 doesn't.
> There are various proposals and whatnot, but I don't see us having a
> real standard any time soon.
And with hot spots likely to pop up like mushrooms all over the place,
it is likely to get worse and worst before it will start getting better.
<snip>
>> PHS is more expensive than PDC if one tries to provide similar
>> coverage, and its last stronghold, the 64 kb/s data, will be
>> eliminated by WLAN in half to one year's time (you can have
>> unlimited voice/video phone calls with WLAN).
>
> If you really think so, I'd like to make a substantial bet with you on
> this. How does 100,000 yen sound? Why don't you write up under what
> terms you'll consider PHS to be "eliminated," and we'll set something
> up.
I am in on that bet with you, Curt ;-)
PHS to be eliminated in 6 to 12 months from now ? Heck, I wouldn't
consider it any risk to bet 1 million or even 10 million yen against
that. The only way for that to happen is another big Kanto daijisshin or
WWIII or a comet blasting us away or something of similar magnitude.
regards
benjamin
Received on Mon Jul 8 06:27:07 2002