Ok mark, thanks for the reply.
I'm left with no appropriately convincing comparison between S-CDMA and CMTO one way or another.
You've presumably got RPM's and possibly INB's, both operating in the Palo Alto cable plant. How many RPM's at what cost? I don't know how much this set up cost...and I don't at what cost S-CDMA could handle the same situation.
Re: "Sometimes filters are used to
keep broad-band interferors at bay as well as narrow band"
What portion of typically relevant noise problems does each, broad and norrow, account for?
Re: "S-CDMA does have advantage of working in certain types of narrow
band interference. However, not to the mutual exclusion of other
solutions working just fine on the same upstream cable plant"
Not to the mutual exclusion of others working just fine too? Ok, accepting that for now, if the others are working "just fine" too, what's the advantage you meant to say S-CDMA offers?
Re: "If the plant is really that bad that QPSK with good FEC cannot run
anywhere on the upstream, then S-CDMA might run if the noise
is mostly narrow band however, the data carry capacity may be
drastically reduced as less spreading codes are used to overcome
the noise"
In this theoretical instance of conditions, you are saying S-CDMA "might run". Is it likely or unlikely to run? You also say that in this instance, and given that S-CDMA is running, data capacity "may" be "drastically reduced." Is it likely data capacity WILL be drastically reduced, or unlikely, in your estimation? Is it fair then to say too, that data capacity "may" hold tough with S-CDMA? You leave that possibility open.
Re: "Yes, you do get service."
Then instead of "might" run as per my previous quote of you, I take it "can" or even "will," could be an accurate substitution?
Are you saying you'd get "just fine" service where "QPSK with good FEC cannot run anywhere on the upstream" with CMTO equipment? If so, then I ask again, what "advantage" are you saying S-CDMA has?
If not, isn't your previous statement false given that S-CDMA could then be said to run where CMTO would not?
Re: "The claim is that S-CDMA buys you insurance. However, S-CDMA is
very complicated and that complexity may not be worth it."
So S-CDMA "may" not be worth it. Hence, this is an admission that you don't know. I can live with that if it's the best you have to offer.
I think you've plainly attempted in the past to indicate S-CDMA has no advantages, even in old plant. To be fair, much like in the previous case with Gilder, off the top of my head I'll allow that perhaps you never actually said that, and I just got carried away and IMAGINE you've said something wrong and, in this case, contradictory. Perhaps it's time for me to let Gilder off the hook, now that you admit to an advantage in S-CDMA which presumably others can't match(else it wouldn't be an advantage, eh?).
I realize that with all the "mays" and the like in your analysis in this and other posts, it may be difficult for you to gauge the advantage you now recognize. I am an untrained and little studied layman in these matters. So perhaps you could just plainly say what practical form an avowed(by both you and TERN) S-CDMA advantage may take- and/or offer a rough range of the possible value in that advantage.
Dan B |
