SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Leap Wireless International (LWIN)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RalphCramden who wrote (2266)6/26/2002 2:30:05 AM
From: engineer   of 2737
 
**** >1X was introduced later because it wasn't available >sooner, if it had been available initially, it's cheap >enough that it would have been installed from day
one.

This may be almost true, but I don't think it is true yet. ****

Defintely not true. the coding techniques that are used in 1x were not around in 1990 when IS-95 was designed. Far more powerful coding schemes were developed such as turbo coding and newer modulation techniques to allow more bits per hertz. Having said this, we could see orders of magnitude more frequency effeciency over time as we gain more powerful techniques and more powerful coding schemes. the cost of 1x is due to a few factors. It takes more chip area and more power to do the 1x coding waveform than it does to do the IS-95, hence the chips must cost more and be redesigned to get the same power ( battery) levels. all this costs money.

Also as we progress, we will see them redesigned again and again year after year to allow for ever more techiques. duplicate receivers with multiple antennas is next which allows almost a doubling again of coding gain. again, this is chip area and power, so newer technoliges and more redesign to reduce power and die size must be done.

And so it goes, year after year......
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext