ion and coding to be used. In a loaded network, the median SNR will be of the order of 5 dB. This suggests real-life MIMO versus SISO throughput gains will be nearer to 20% than the 100% often claimed. Ideally, a test regime has to be developed that emulates practical rather than theoretical conditions. If SISO OTA radio measurements can be controlled within plus or minus 2 dB then MIMO measurements are unlikely to be more accurate. A large uncertainty could be argued to invalidate the value of the test. Relaxing the MIMO OTA minimum requirement by some proportion of the test uncertainty would really not help very much. What all of the above highlights is that a measurement approach needs to be agreed for MIMO devices that results in a methodology that can distinguish good and bad performance. Such an approach has now been agreed after considerable effort in SISO measurements but has yet to be agreed for MIMO measurements. As of today, it is possible to do comparative measurements of SISO user equipment that are meaningful and provide a benchmark against which subsequent year-on-year performance improvements can be measured. This is not presently possible in MIMO user equipment. The industry might pause to consider whether the expectations for spatial multiplexing gains in ideal conditions might possibly be disproportionate and unduly influenced by a marketing fascination with headline peak data rates in small-diameter cells. Improvement in robustness from RX and TX diversity may well be of more significance. Some aspects of MIMO, for example RX and TX diversity and beam steering, may deliver enough gain over a sufficiently broad spread of operational conditions to be worthwhile but generally spatial multiplexing gains in the lower bands and in larger-diameter cells will be marginal and it would seem that effort is being expended in areas that will have less impact on the user experience in wide-area access conditions than commonly assumed. Comparing LTE and WiFi connectivity throughput speed and efficiency sugge