There may be some discrepencies in Rajala's dogma:
>I have always wondered, engineer, whether you wear one of
>those funny engineer hats when you write your postings. I
>think we should be told.
Hmm, this must pass for wit in your company. Civil discourse
it surely aint. In post 16808 you write:
"I believe in good concepts & long term, debate and critique"
No sign of it in the passage above. Still. I need to understand
your position on WLL CDMA. In post 16857 you write:
"First of all, let's remember where the 3 x capacity advantage
for WLL is supposed to come from: the reduced non-traffic
signalling, such as power control etc. which is estimated to
take 2/3 of CDMA1 capacity (!) when it takes only between 1/8
and 1/16 of GSM capacity. We are talking about the same basic functions, nicht wahr? Do we all accept that CDMA1 eats bandwidth
like a lewinsky with 10 x more inefficient signalling
than GSM?"
To an unsuspecting reader this would give the distinct impression
that you think CDMA wastes 2/3 bandwidth in signaling. Of course
the reader would be entirely wrong, since in post 16864 you write:
"There has been plenty of counter argument about how
"inexpensive" (CDMA) based WLL is, as compared to CDMA1,
which I did not buy. I did not believe that "signalling"
(terminology appears to vary , I mean all supportive signalling
that makes the call possible but is not the content of the call)
in CDMA1 is 2/3 of the total traffic"
Okay so you think CDMA does NOT take 2/3 of the total capacity
for signaling. Fine. You have changed your mind. It happens.
I think I understand. But wait, in post 17012 you write, in
response to Engineer:
"OK so you say there is no signalling problem. Then you say you
save 2/3 of the capcity by not having more accurate power control
and by not having to deal with handoffs. Well, power control and
handoff are signalling."
No. Power control is signaling after all, and CDMA is wasteful.
Okay now I am somewhat confused. Or is it you changing your position
again? Which is it? Is CDMA wasteful or not? No wonder Engineer and
I (and may be others?) are having difficulty with your posts.
But what of your views on WLL?
"It is a dog". "It is lousy". "Bad idea". "WLL concept is dog"
Hmm, I think I am beginning to understand your idea of "longterm
debate & critique": unsubstantiated dogma.
Regards. |
