Suppose you had a wireless router in your house and you wanted to have computers (or something) in your house on channels 1 6 and 11. You've got two options, as far as I can tell from rudimentry networking class: Either set your router to time division multiplex (process 1 for T seconds, process 6 for T seconds, process 11 for T seconds, repeat) or get three access points and plug them into a hub/rounter, set one to work on 1, one to work on 6, one to work on 11. What these guys do seems like the equivalent of this last option in one box. (http://www.engim.com/products_technology.ht ml)
Regarding wireless phones and Wi-Fi: you're going to run into problems no matter what if you try to operate on three channels at once. Simply because an access point can operate on three channels at once doesn't mean that it will pump out crap regardless of whether or not you're using those channels. So the notion of these guys monopolizing the 2.4GHz band against your will seems far-fetched...I think your microwave screwing up your WLAN is more of a worry.
I won't claim to be omniscient regarding 3G, but having recently been laid off from a RF component company I've had some insight into 3G basestation deployment in North America and Europe.
My opinion is that one can throw all the spectrum you want at 3G and it will continue to flounder as it has been for the past three years. Companies such as the one I worked for have been looking for the take-off of 3G for quite a while and have now resigned themselves to the fact that it may never really happen. One of the only things pushing deployment in Europe is the fact that licence holders will loose their licences if they don't put any basestations in the field by a certain deadline.
The problem is not a lack of spectrum or too much beauraucracy. Rather is it is a general lack of demand for services that 3G can provide. Here is an abbreviated list of links to stories that support my hypothesis. I acknowledge that there may exist evidence to the contrary out there.
I got onto this thread a bit late, which has allowed me to browse and read a majority of the articles.
It seems like the wisest message that comes through is that it all depends on the users. It really makes little sense for someone to declare the Palm Pilot a toy if it is a toy for them. Clearly, they are essential for some people, not so essential for others.
I personally don't believe that anyone should be so wrapped up in slapping a label on it either way. It really serves no purpose in the end and it tends to cause arguments that really cannot be resolved because of their totally subjective nature.
I have not bought a Palm Pilot yet because I don't feel I really need one. I am Master's student right now, and my lifestyle really doesn't call for strict time management (although mine could certain improve). Does this preclude the usefulness of PDAs? Obviously not. My room-mate has one and makes great use of it. Does this mean I will be a more productive person if I get one? No.
Now, as far as the IS support entailed when a company encourages the use of PDAs goes, I think this is an example of how corporations in general jump on technological bandwaggons without critically evaluating the impacts their policies make. No doubt, encouraging Palm Pilots might result it the "waste" of resources if there is no money to provide the necessary support. However, this is a problem, as I mentioned, with corporate policy setting not with anything inherent in the device itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose you had a wireless router in your house and you wanted to have computers (or something) in your house on channels 1 6 and 11. You've got two options, as far as I can tell from rudimentry networking class: Either set your router to time division multiplex (process 1 for T seconds, process 6 for T seconds, process 11 for T seconds, repeat) or get three access points and plug them into a hub/rounter, set one to work on 1, one to work on 6, one to work on 11. What these guys do seems like the equivalent of this last option in one box.t ml)
(http://www.engim.com/products_technology.h
Regarding wireless phones and Wi-Fi: you're going to run into problems no matter what if you try to operate on three channels at once. Simply because an access point can operate on three channels at once doesn't mean that it will pump out crap regardless of whether or not you're using those channels. So the notion of these guys monopolizing the 2.4GHz band against your will seems far-fetched...I think your microwave screwing up your WLAN is more of a worry.
I won't claim to be omniscient regarding 3G, but having recently been laid off from a RF component company I've had some insight into 3G basestation deployment in North America and Europe.
3 gdream.htm2003/5179.htmr oduct/latestresearch/0083 76.htm
My opinion is that one can throw all the spectrum you want at 3G and it will continue to flounder as it has been for the past three years. Companies such as the one I worked for have been looking for the take-off of 3G for quite a while and have now resigned themselves to the fact that it may never really happen. One of the only things pushing deployment in Europe is the fact that licence holders will loose their licences if they don't put any basestations in the field by a certain deadline.
The problem is not a lack of spectrum or too much beauraucracy. Rather is it is a general lack of demand for services that 3G can provide. Here is an abbreviated list of links to stories that support my hypothesis. I acknowledge that there may exist evidence to the contrary out there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2248376.stm
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/April
http://www.tiu.ie/
http://www.ovum.com/go/p
I got onto this thread a bit late, which has allowed me to browse and read a majority of the articles.
It seems like the wisest message that comes through is that it all depends on the users. It really makes little sense for someone to declare the Palm Pilot a toy if it is a toy for them. Clearly, they are essential for some people, not so essential for others.
I personally don't believe that anyone should be so wrapped up in slapping a label on it either way. It really serves no purpose in the end and it tends to cause arguments that really cannot be resolved because of their totally subjective nature.
I have not bought a Palm Pilot yet because I don't feel I really need one. I am Master's student right now, and my lifestyle really doesn't call for strict time management (although mine could certain improve). Does this preclude the usefulness of PDAs? Obviously not. My room-mate has one and makes great use of it. Does this mean I will be a more productive person if I get one? No.
Now, as far as the IS support entailed when a company encourages the use of PDAs goes, I think this is an example of how corporations in general jump on technological bandwaggons without critically evaluating the impacts their policies make. No doubt, encouraging Palm Pilots might result it the "waste" of resources if there is no money to provide the necessary support. However, this is a problem, as I mentioned, with corporate policy setting not with anything inherent in the device itself.