"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Steve wrote:

Streaming audio certainly isn't DX, but I fully support Wimax and
internet radio because (1) they're going send HD radio into the
dustbin and (2) they don't destroy a huge swath of spectrum.


It doesn't? According to wikipedia, the EU has set-aside 300
megahertz of space! That's a heck of a "huge swatch" of spectrum. 15
times larger than what's allocated to FM, and 300 times larger than
the AM allocation.

I call that huge.


300 MHz isn't beans at 2.4 GHz (or higher). It's also not a lot when you
consider that the bandwidth will be used by thousands or more users. Once
you break it down into individual slices of bandwidth for each of those
users, it doesn't really allow for much. Wireless N for your home network
passes up to 200Mb/s.. you don't think that takes a lot of bandwidth?

Cell phone systems use large swaths of bandwidth, even with coded and time
domain sharing, and they will be taking up even more in the near future.
Some will use frequencies vacated by the upper television channels.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
Steve wrote:

Streaming audio certainly isn't DX, but I fully support Wimax and
internet radio because (1) they're going send HD radio into the
dustbin and (2) they don't destroy a huge swath of spectrum.

It doesn't? According to wikipedia, the EU has set-aside 300
megahertz of space! That's a heck of a "huge swatch" of spectrum.
15 times larger than what's allocated to FM, and 300 times
larger than the AM allocation. I call that huge.


300 MHz isn't beans at 2.4 GHz (or higher). It's also not a lot when you
consider that the bandwidth will be used by thousands or more users. Once
you break it down into individual slices of bandwidth for each of those
users, it doesn't really allow for much. Wireless N for your home network
passes up to 200Mb/s..

you don't think that takes a lot of bandwidth?


Uh. Yes. Which is why I was rebutting the comment "Wimax doesn't
destroy a huge swath of spectrum."