![]() (Although not sure how they're doing that with their radios.) There are odd bits of spectrum like the extended AMPS channels that are 1.4~MHz wide that would not really help 5G in any way as well, a perfect place to throw a 1x channel or a bank of GSM. So technologically a site upgrade could maintain legacy tech in tiny bands, similar to how T-Mobile keeps GSM alive in the LTE guard band. ![]() It is weird too as newer equipment generally can run the older modulations, as processing power increases, what used to be done in dedicated hardware can now be run as a software package. They can structure this as a fiscal win for a quarter or three and pat themselves on the back. The older equipment, which was already written off their balance sheet after purchase and is treated as a depreciating item and costing repair/maint/power can go away. It becomes a monthly OpEx expense to (insert cloud provider) rather than a big CapEx spend and then nothing. Technologically, when the fifth generation is out, they'll perceive they are saving so much money as 5G allows a lot of physical infrastructure to be clouded. I'm at a camp site in the middle of nowhere, I just need to call for help, maybe get a text from someone. Last time I was in Europe, I actually didn't mind that as I went more rural, my service dropped from LTE->WCDMA->GSM progressively. Any air path technology that gets the job done is fundamentally the right one. Carriers want to tell their shareholders they have "this thing that will make us money called a G" and they race ahead, claiming it is "progress". We are in some kind of market-force arms race.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |