[e2e] Re: narrow vs. wide bandwidth (hz)

[Nitin H. Vaidya]

.  >>OK; I would not say "consumed" (as in a manner that "exhausts" the
.  >>resource, or uses it in some mutually exclusive way), but I *would*
.  >>say "utilized".  And I would obviously only consider narrowing
.  >>bandwidth(hz) relevant in systems where bandwidth (hz) is a limited
.  >>resource (due to sharing, or any other reason).  In that context I
.  >>assumed that if you have two implementations with all desirable
.  >>properties equal, and equal in all respects other than bandwidth (hz),
.  >>then the one that used narrower bandwidth (hz) would be better.  (And,
.  >>of course, if using a wider band yields a better system, I will prefer
.  >>the system that uses more bandwidth, but I thought I was clear that I
.  >>was speaking about the [sometimes hypothetical or mythical] case of
.  >>"all other things being equal".) If that's wrong, then I _have_ fallen
.  >>into the trap you are concerned about, and here's where I'd welcome
.  >>enlightenment (you can delete end2end-interest, but I may not be the
.  >>only one who has fallen into this trap).  And I'm aware of spread
.  >>spectrum, CDMA, etc., but perhaps I don't understand as well as I
.  >>thought, or I may be misunderstanding something fundamental about your
.  >>point.

I guess the point is that the bandwidth "utilization/consumption" is not
precise because it ignores the spatial dimension. One can improve
capacity, for instance, by addiing spatially separated antennas. But
there are limits to this as well (if not in theory, in practice).
So "utilization/consumption" is not entirely a flawed notion, but has
its limitations.

- nitin