Interesting, i would love to see how this works out, my current iphone connection is way slower then when i got it and sometimes don't even load -.- I'm trying to load HH and only the header pops up :(
It works rather simply really. The backhaul lines are already in place on many towers as a ground link. It takes the call/download/gps/web session from air transmission, and runs it through ground lines. Then the major data traffic specifically is through the ground lines and it can transmit from the tower over the air with the increased bandwidth availability. In the current 3G space the over the air traffic does not really consume tons of space because 3G transmission is actually very slow anyways.
The kicker here is that the already in place telephone network is way slower than a cable network with less availability as well as space on it. When this started the only people who had linkable lines in the areas was widely telecommunication transmission wires. Not to mention it was not really needed and was just meant as a backup for which standard phone wires were enough. This is not the case especially with smartphones full web availability not to mention GPS etc etc.
This is a very simplified explanation, but I imagine you can get the general meaning with it. A cable network is a big closed network with more capable wiring. So bandwidth is much more manageable, not to mention a closed network works point to point rather than everything using and receiving from one in a more wide area rather than closed network protocol.
As I mentioned this is nowhere near the exact explaining of this, but a wide generalization of it. IN case of the iPhone look as the data as a river and over the air transmission as a dam, whereas on a cable network you just have a river with loads of bandwidth. While it may in time take bandwidth from the cable network they can just allow more bandwidth to the needed areas much easier than a phone wire can do the same. If all communication lines were fiber that would be the best because it has more bandwidth than cable as will gigabyte fiber over current standard fiber.
Another provider in the 'loop' will have to be paid. Seeing as though the Wireless carriers don't/will not want to give up even a small portion of their income, it will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher gouging.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
Uhhhh.... Wasn't Time Warner already complaining about bandwidth issues themselves? And trying to make US pay for there problems?
Hmmm... if they've got so much extra bandwidth that they thing they can take on an entire wireless carrier then what the hell are they complaining about?
As for bandwidth I am pretty sure the complaining was just to make them sound more favorable to customers. I don't know there true amount of coverage either I have never looked at how many users or the landmass they cover. I have of course never subscribed to anyone but either Cox or Comcast for cable either.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms