(keitai-l) Re: Vodafone MMS settings

From: Arnold P. Siboro <asiboro_at_maltech.jp>
Date: 06/18/05
Message-Id: <20050618231632.4A0D.ASIBORO@maltech.jp>
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:23:09 +0900
Gerhard Fasol <fasol@eurotechnology.com> wrote:

> Arnold P. Siboro wrote:
> > No of course. 
> No - that's not how it is.

I was answering to the question whether flat rate includes data from PC,
i.e., "no of course" it does not include data from PC. I don't
understand what your "No" is directed at.

> > Wireless resource is always much more limited that wired
> > ones, so I doubt carriers can carry the data if they allow such
> > unlimited plan.
> You are wrong. This is a question of business models and competition
> not of limited resources.
> There are flat fees for PC access and also for voice in Japan -
> introduction of flat fee programs is a competitive tool.
> Gerhard

I only said I doubt carriers can carry the data over the wireless link,
I did not say that business model and competition do not play any role
in this. I am not a W-CDMA/CDMA2000 expert, but I think I know that in
general wireless link is a much more limited resource compared to wired
link. For example, one data communication on CDMA2000 1x occupies
1.25Mhz, and even with code division one base station (one cell) is only
able to handle very limited communication with terminals (handsets)
compared with wired communication. On the other hand DoCoMo's 800Mhz
allocation is said to be enough only for 44 millions users, that's why
it is in a hurry to take measures (i.e., to move users to more spacious
FOMA's 2Ghz) since it's 800Mhz users have been approaching that number.
Imagine if more people are receiving and sending more data more often, I
believe the projected capacity will be much lower than 44 millions.

BTW, yes I know there is wireless flat rate for PC, I was even a PHS
flat rate user in Japan when it was still called DDI (or was it already
KDDI back then? it's Willcom now).

Arnold P. Siboro (asiboro@maltech.jp)

The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, 
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
Received on Sat Jun 18 17:16:54 2005