thanks for the perceptive comments. You touch on many relevant points.
You are correct, implementation on the mobile equipment would be a logical next step - subject of course to the power and processing constraints on the mobile platform.
The conversion to RF has to do with realistic integration constraints - it's not a core part of the design. The system described integrates essentially like a "smart" RF cable in existing infrastructure. As the technology is adopted, it would inevitably be integrated at baseband in the radio.
I also agree that adaptive spatial techniques would provide huge benefits in capacity. This should be complementary technology to the adaptive filtering approach described above.
Thank you very much for such a thought provoking descriptions of RF interference problems and solutions to them.
My first thought is the article is very base station centric. As Moore marches on much of this will be applicable to the mobile end of the channel as well. Second thought; why after all this elegant processing would you want to convert back to RF?
The next thing that comes to mind, which you touched on very briefly, is the dynamic range requirement for the A/D in a strong interference scenario.
The biggest thing that comes to mind though is the wild ride we have before us as data use rises exponentially. You mention the ultimate need for further bandwidth. But this too has its limits. We don’t want this to turn into another water resource fight. Fortunately we have another three dimensions to play with, spatial resources. The situational awareness that you speak of should include a spatial RF refractive and reflective index map, including as precise as possible real time mobile device location. We can thereby use directionality to spatially increase capacity.
The Other Tesla David Blaza5 comments I find myself going to Kickstarter and Indiegogo on a regular basis these days because they have become real innovation marketplaces. As far as I'm concerned, this is where a lot of cool ...