Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (5920)	11/10/1999 3:27:00 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

wonk - Have been lurking, trying to gain some insight into the WOFDM/VOFDM debate. With respect to the previous mobile questions, a few quick links, without comment - Message 10420161 Message 10417984 Message 9563628 Message 10290379 I'm even less able than you to wade thru the IPR swamp. This is the MCDSSS patent re: the 3G/ITU application: patents.ibm.com and this is an old article that lends weight to Wi-LAN's OFDM claim - edtn.com Some knowledgeable sources have the same estimate of the CISCO matter as yours...some go further, and expect Cisco will try to trash Wi-LAN, while they do an end run. It seems that knowledgeable supporters of Wi-LAN are more Euro-centric in their approach, and they feel that Cisco, in their experience, will be, well, Cisco. This, of course, gets into the political dimensions of all this; I have heard the same remarks from the same sources re: Qualcomm. Some have even suggested that Wi-LAN needs another "big gun" as an ally, and I'll leave you to figure out the names. Again, I have a substantial investment in Wi-LAN, but I'm not trying to hype it on these boards - I'm hoping that knowledgeable posters will help establish the realities here. For instance, I have a lot of informed opinion that says that the VOFDM system, as proposed, will be unreliable in bad weather, rain, snow, and temperature extremes. On the other hand, Bernard seems to feel that VOFDM can accomplish what it claims, and will overcome any multipath interference. Another informed source says that the (future) Holy Grail is Software Radio, and that WOFDM and its algorithms are a natural, while VOFDM, being a hardware/software implementation, will be unlikely to succeed. Anyway, the debate goes on, and we all eagerly await insight into these esoteric matters. Best, Jim Kayne

To: wonk who wrote (5920)	11/10/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: jack bittner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

hi w_w, thank you sincerely for your speedy, generous and thorough reply. i thought i read that VOFDM was a virtual mobile wireless technology, that it overcame (or could overcome, with further development)line-of-sight limitations, so that if i, the user, can roam among the skyscrapers, i would not care that the antennae of the senders are fixed. i realize that the ultimate solution has to be mobile wireless sender/receiver can roam. you mention the traditional providers, using CDMA, enhanced TDMA etc. since the superior among them is CDMA, whose payload is limited, i find myself back to square one in trying to dope out who has at least an edge in achieving the next step. on a slightly different angle, do i have it right that for LMDS, teligent is the current leader? is there a website - other than teligent's - to read about LMDS? Dr. Levy says LMDS is needed for true broadband access. that seems to me an enormous advantage, and that rather than seeking low-cost repeaters for VOFDM, as cisco is doing, it would be more worthwhile for someone to develop repeaters for LMDS, and to increase LMDS's broader applicability.