[95046] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wifi for 600, alex
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Mon Feb 19 10:27:15 2007
In-Reply-To: <a2b2d0480702160336p3c65ac72s4500e664dfc3c2ed@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:07:00 -0500
To: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Alexander,
as you might imagine, conceptually there is no disagreement
whatsoever here ;-) And, in fact, that already exists on some
platforms, but it's somewhat limited at the moment due to lack of
support for standards body/bodies at this time. But I'm hopeful that
we're closer to meaningful improvements. This is just as important
for managing the available spectrum as it is for device power
efficiency.
Best regards,
Christian
On Feb 16, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> Another mobile-land feature 802.11 could do with - dynamic TX power
> management. All the cellular systems have the ability to dial down
> the transmitter power the nearer to the BTS/Node B you get. This is
> not just good for batteries, but also good for radio, as s/n has
> diminishing returns to transmitter power. WLAN, though, shouts as
> loud next to the AP as on the other side of the street, which is
> Not Good for a system that operates in unlicensed spectrum.
>
> UMTS, for example, has a peak tx wattage an order of magnitude
> greater than WLAN, but due to the power management, in a picocell
> environment comparable to a WLAN the mean tx wattage is less by a
> factor of 10.
