my inner geek wrote:
>
> Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
Actually, Ken, I (Dan Clemmensen) am the one who said:
>
> >has a huge advantage in ease of upgrade. As to breaking the local
> >telco monopoly on the "last mile" ("bypass technology"), radio works
> >pretty well, in many forms: look at cellular and satellite phones.
> >Interstingly, the "G3" cellular proposals (i.e., third-generation
> >cellular protocols) are currently being worked out. they are supposed
> >to permit data rates to 2Mbps (burst), which is a huge leap. Another
>
> Do you know where I might find more information on "G3" cellular
> proposals? Personally, I favor some sort of gps-based
> spread-spectrum radio solution that assumes full access to the
> spectrum (as would be the case when developing a homestead in the
> forest, jungle, or desert).
I gor the info form an article at http://www.eet.com
sometime last week.
>
> Looking at it from this perspective allows one to develop a
> model that can be a point of comparison when looking at how
> inefficient "incremental" approaches are compared to "fresh start"
> approaches. While the fresh start approaches may not be easily
> implemented in developed areas, there is always the possibility of
> presenting the option as an attractive alternative to incremental
> upgrades.
>
One of the most important goals of the G3 specification is to create
a world-wide standard so that you phone will work anywhere.