On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Benjamin wrote:
> 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 ?
Well, 14 in Japan. As few as three elsewhere in the world (such as
France, IIRC.)
But the big problem is that this is not WiFi spectrum; this is
"anything you care to put in there" spectrum. PHS devices are
designed to co-operate nicely with each other; WiFi is designed,
at best, to avoid screwing up just other WiFi devices, if you're
lucky and pick a different channel.
> 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.
Well, I'm glad we agree on something, at least. :-)
Although I think we disagree slightly on the PHS data issue. You
recognise that PHS is really cool technology, but as we've seen with PDC
(where we also seem to disagree), good or crap base technology doesn't
matter nearly as much as, "can you do cool stuff with it."
DDI upgraded from 32K to 128K data access by devoting four channels
to packet switched data on each access point instead of just one. This
means they can now do three fewer simultaneous phone calls through each
access point, and yet they found this worthwhile. I would not be terribly
surprised if at some point they decided that it is worthwhile to devote
even more channels to packet-switched data.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs_at_cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
Received on Mon Jul 8 07:31:12 2002