But that increases contention, doesn't it? And correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth is inversely proportional to frequency so the new frequencies will have more customers and lower bandwidth efficiency. Is the frequency range wide enough to compensate?
That's true - I believe that's why the newer 2G networks (1800) had the ability to handle more concurrent calls.
However as I understand (and I'm probably wrong!) the design of LTE is much more efficient and packet based so that the capacity is increased even on the lower frequencies. I know verizon in the US is running LTE on around 800mhz.
Its going to be one to watch.
As far as GSM was concerned, the frequency had nothing (directly) to do with the bandwidth - every frequency was capable of carrying the same amoutn of data.
The real difference was that the signal at higher frequencies would attenuate faster, so not be able to get as much distance. That required the 1800MHz companies to have more base-station sites to get the same coverage of the physical areas. Of course, they wouldn't need as many transceivers at each site to cover the same amount of population, but if they did have a higher number of transceivers in the network, *then* they can support more calls troughout the network.
I'm not sure of the consequences on 3G, where data gets distibuted over the frequencies rather differently, using spread spectrum techniques, and power control plays a bigger part.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
RobertoS
.
