| > there is always a transmitter pointed at you A transmitter, sure. If you go from having 40 transmitters pointing at you, to now having 6 transmitters pointing at you, that makes a big difference. Even if they're running at twice the EIRP now, that's a big improvement. > So any argument based on this idea that there are no transmitters pointed at you would fail badly in practice. My argument doesn't depend on that. > The amount of interference depends on many factors. [...] So to estimate the change in interference when all replace their omnidirectional antennas with directive antennas, increasing the radiant intensity, is far more complex than your simple arithmetic. Yes I simplified. But does that completely upend the result? If so, show me the math that makes it happen. > groups within which only one transmits (but almost all the time there is an active transmitter) > cross the threshold at which communication becomes impossible for yourself And guess what? If everyone doubles their EIRP but transmits in a much narrower beam, the area in which that happens becomes smaller. The number of transmitter pairs that need to time-share decreases. > Planning wireless networks cannot be done based on hopes that you will be the luckiest in the universe and Murphy's law will not apply to you. I think your argument depends on me being lucky in the omnidirectional case but unlucky in the directed transmit case. That's not a reasonable way to assess alternatives. For every percent chance that higher-EIRP directional transmit causes me problems, there's a bigger chance that higher-total-power omnidirectional transmit causes me problems. |