It doesn't matter anyway, because the level of integration continues to become tighter, and as a result, the component count keeps decreasing. All four radios will soon be on a single chip, if they aren't already.
Of course, all new handsets will now have to be outfitted with the new Big Brother chip, which they forced on us by simply pushing it through the FCC instead of normal legislation.
well, while a handset with dect chip might be nice (so it just switches your expensive mobile voice line over to your cheapo home line) but thats not what the telcos want.
they would sacrifice a holy cashcow to the will of the consumer, and since telcos re-sell most of the cellphones around this won't happen.
its next to a miracle that they have wireless lan by now. I guess thats one of the things we have to thank apple and HTC for.
1. Bundle land-line service with cell-phone service. I know AT&T does this, and I'm sure Verizon is doing this as well. This is usually just a billing convenience, though. There's no hand-off of cell-phone to a local base-station.
There may be a discount for bundling services, though.
2. Femtocells. As more and more people shift towards using a cell-phone as their primary communications device, the more demand there is for good voice and data quality at home. Since a femtocell is a mini-base station, your cell-phone can seamlessly hand-off to it. It does usually require a high-speed internet connection, though, if you want to do 3G or better data speeds. Plus, the carriers may charge you extra for using a femtocell.
Either way, the carriers are still getting their money. Even if they embraced something like DECT, they'd most likely either require that your local base-station use their network, or they'd figure out some way to charge you for roaming or somesuch.
FemtoBinder
I agree, for the most part, that the different radio technologies have different characteristics that would prevent one from being replaced by another. However, it could be possible to consolidate the technologies into one that is a superset.
If there was a radio technology with low-latency, long range, low power requirements, etc., and all those characteristics could be configurable, then you might have something. Don't need a lot of range or power because you're just doing close-proximity device-to-device, then just dial down to what you need. Connecting to a provider's cell network? Dial the range and power back up.
Doing multiple functions at once might be a challenge, but that could be solved by channelizing the medium in some way and giving each device a certain number of transceivers that can operate in parallel.
Radio Binder
Protocol Binder
According to Wikipedia, DECT hasn't had much market penetration
outside of cordless phones due to WiFi and competing cellular
technologies having better economies of scale.
It's a double fail. 1) it sounds like it tries to do what I'm talking about but failed in favor of 7 different unrelated overengineered technologies, and 2) it's not universally compatible because they had to change the frequency range in the US because of regulations.
Whatever the reason #2 should just make them drop the whole idea. The whole point is to NOT do that, so having to break the design where the whole point of the design is to NOT BREAK THAT ONE THING kinda defeats the whole purpose of the technology.
so now we have broken cell phone and broken dect systems. Better they not take off in the first place.
etc. I can't think of any one of them whose functions could be
replaced with another. Many devices have lots of different attachments
No, so maybe we need a 5th that's better than all the other 4.
different protocols. 802.11 is a shared-media multiple access protocol
whereas Bluetooth is more of a master-slave point-to-point protocol.
Cellular voice and data services are essentially controller-based as
well.
That's a software problem. THe cheapest one to solve.
I just walked past teh Apple Store and learned that iPhone is now
available in TWO DIFFERENT COLORS!! How INNOVATIVE! That'll kill off
the competition from Android for sure!
Today I heard an Apple fanboi take the data of "Apple has sold X number of white iPhones" and koolaidize it as "Apple's release of the iPhone in white has led to X number of additional sales."
srsly? I wonder how they manage to get any cell coverage inside of the reality distortion field.
A lot of frequency discrepancies between the U.S. and many other countries , as far as I know, has a lot to do with how we handle spectrum allocations here in the U.S. The FCC regulates who gets what frequencies and how much bandwidth, but generally, the FCC assigns spectrum using an auction. What can end up happening--and did in the case for GSM phones--is that the frequencies used by most of the world for certain technologies get auctioned off and end up in the hands of a company that uses it for an incompatible purpose. I don't know if that's the case for DECT, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a likely reason.
As far as the access protocols for networking. Though those protocols could be accomplished in software, they're almost always implemented in hardware due to the very low-level that they operate at--sometimes requiring access to the direct media in the case of collision detection algorithms--and for performance reasons.
Spell
Well, most of what you see in the press is within that field, so it's probably not that hard.
I'd be more concerned about cell coverage outside the field, except we're probably stuck inside it for the long term.
dect uses the same range as microwaves, wlan... and so on. which is internationaly free available.
but yea, sometimes there are frequencies allocated by local church tv stations in the US which are used for other purposes all around the rest of the world.
since you can combined boxes (avm fritzbox) I don't think its that much of a problem.
I think you've gotta choose your network channels a bit wisely.
I have a dect sitting 2 inches away from my wireless router. Hadn't even thought of it being a problem. It's been that way for at least 2 years.
ok...What's the difference between honeycomb and gingerbread.... and I don't mean from a baker's perspective.
I seem to see people saying that they're two different operating systems that do Android. I find this confusing because I thought Android was the OS.
Are they different distros?
I really want to be geekier. Please help.
I think they're names for releases, like windows xp or windows vista
more like the ubuntu release names...
Androis is the OS, the actual number is the version, and the "honeycomb" or "gingerbread" is the 'code name' like ubuntu's Maverick Meercat (or likewise).
They're just following suit on the basic linux distro naming scheme.
Windoze is different in their naming scheme.... technically they're still under "longhorn" (they go by kernel version instead of release version for naming... weird, right?)
well, since microsoft changed its marketing name for their OS releases with nearly each release... it was hard to find this example ;-) Also the kernel version was... 4.0, (NT4) 5.0(2000) 5.1 (XP) and I guess vista is 6.0 and seven 6.1?
there are also codenames which aren't publicaly known like longhort etc.but I guess its more common knowledge than the ubuntu names, so its a better explanation and thats why me has chosen it.