On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Ken Chang wrote:
> there are a lot of things PHS and WLAN share.
> - both are designed both in-door and out-door, local and public
WLAN, if you're talking about 802.11 (you really should be more
specific), is most definitely *not* designed for public use.
> - both have some 100 m radius, and relatively cheap basestation
I suppose it depends on "relative to what." Both are extremely cheap
compared to a cellular site, yes. But an 802.11b base station goes for
about $150. I expect a small, indoor PHS base station goes for more like
a thousand or two, and a big outdoor one for more like ten thousand
> - both for Internet/Web access (an accidental success for PHS)
Well, technically, neither base station offers this sort of access.
802.11 offers Ethernet, over which other services may be provided, and
PHS offers both packet-based and connection-based data connections, of
which other services may be provided.
> - neither have hand-off (we can discuss later)
Sorry? Both have hand-off in their standards. Please let me know why
you feel that they don't.
> - neither can have full coverage
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Certainly PHS is quite effectively
"full coverage" for me. I get better coverage with my PHS card than I
get with my PDC keitai!
> - companies will use WLAN and not PHS for LAN access. this makes
> good advantage for the WLAN market that, if enough hot-spots,
> everyone will only invest in and use WLAN instead of PHS, that
> the PHS subscription may dive like a stone.
Companies will certainly (and already do) use 802.11 for in-office
wireless LAN access, yes. For out-of-office stuff, companies are indeed
using PHS (I am doing consulting for a reseller that's selling this to
them), and I think that they will continue to do so, because 802.11
hotspots are not going to achieve the same coverage or reliability, due
to a host of factors.
> accually, WLAN and PHS competes in the same market segments -
> those who use computers extensively in the office and at home.
Not at all. PHS is for those who are not at home or in the office.
> - the WLAN access points can reverse-bill the service providers,
> kind like roaming (not Zebra ;-) or the business of automatic
> vendor machines.
There's no standard for this, and no easy way to implement this
right now. So how do you propose this will ever happen?
> - WLAN is a world, oops, US standard
As is PHS.
> ...and the chips and equipment
> will be cheaper than PHS (several million yen for a 3 channel
Yes, of course. That's always the case when you're talking about
consumer items produced in the millions versus business items produced
in the tens of thousands.
> - also as a standard, you can have one card to use anywhere and
> access any service provider, as opposed to PHS (though it's
> a non-brainer to choose H"). same for roaming/abroad use.
The problem with accessing service providers is nothing to do with
whether the card is compatable or not. The problem is billing.
> - the Japanese regulators make more hassles than yakuza, and
> I'd not say it's a demerit if WLAN is not treated as telecom
> service, which will make it cheaper and easier to roll-out.
It's easy to roll out as long as it's not rolled out. Things are
going to get really interesting when we have a lot more devices
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 09:18:18 2002