Don't be trite. Receiving is completely different from sending. "You" doesn't include the other guy, in my dictionary.
It may raise the amount that can be sent over the network in toto, assuming that data demand is the same in all directions. Which it almost never is.
So what they've done is, they allow the data uplink to occur simultaneously with the downlink.
A valid claim is, the latency of data is improved - you don't have to wait/schedule your sends around the receive traffic. Which can matter quite a bit in the bulk of cases e.g. downloading http while jabbing buttons/sending commands up to the server.
it's fairly standard terminology...you've doubled the amount of data that can be sent over a given chunk of spectrum per unit time, without changing the modulation/encoding scheme (bits/hz). A normal full duplex FDD system takes twice the bandwidth to pass the same amount of information as this theoretically can.
Rather than think about bursty, asymmetric Ethernet bits, consider passing something like a fully allocated T1 over it. Symmetric TDM links aren't totally dead, there are a lot of T1 radios out there. What used to take X Hz of bandwidth, theoretically can be done in X/2...without changing the modulation.
I don't think it will actually be used that way, but it is a breakthrough of sorts to be able to do so.
Some people don't know what they're going to say until they say it. If such people could send and receive at the same time, they would be getting more information per unit time.
It may raise the amount that can be sent over the network in toto, assuming that data demand is the same in all directions. Which it almost never is.
So what they've done is, they allow the data uplink to occur simultaneously with the downlink.
A valid claim is, the latency of data is improved - you don't have to wait/schedule your sends around the receive traffic. Which can matter quite a bit in the bulk of cases e.g. downloading http while jabbing buttons/sending commands up to the server.