http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19959079 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:26:32 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:26:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19970342 --
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19970342 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:06:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19961800 said by rahvin112:

Some of the companies that are 2 or 2.5G right now will likely skip 3g right on to 4G, just as some of them went right from analog to 3G. 4G is a much bigger deal than 3G. 4G allows for enough bandwidth to make mobile high usage Internet available without minuscule limits. Some predict 4G will make mobile broadband so cheap and easy that it will begin to make serious competition with land line Internet. 4G offers not only latency equivalent to land line but bandwidth and a shared pool of 10x more bandwidth available per tower. Tack in the 700mhz spectrum and you have a major third tier broadband provider that could bring real competition to the land line market and might make non-satellite rural broadband a reality.
There's one big issue to this, what good is it to have 20 Mbps to the phone when the cellsite backhaul is a single T-1. This is a problem providers are finding with 3G now, they have to increase capacity on the site.
Add to that 64QAM will require a higher RSSI and that means you can see new sites in the future as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19961800 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:34:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19961011 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19961011 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:37:59 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19959670 --
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-why-19959670 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:09:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/why-19959079 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/why-19959079 Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:26:55 EDT