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 (5960)	11/14/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 12823

wonk - Thanks, very much, for both of your lengthy and descriptive posta. They must have been a lot of trouble, and it's appreciated. They'll be printed out, re-read and well-used. Best wishes, Jim Kayne

To: wonk who wrote (5960)	11/14/1999 11:33:00 AM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 12823

ww, thanks, for the brief yet, somewhat concise dissertation regarding issues of signal degradation and the modulation thereof, to avoid interference. cheers

To: wonk who wrote (5960)	11/14/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: akmike	Respond to of 12823

ww-great post-Now I have a much clearer explanation for why I don't understand any of this. <gg> Best regards, Mike

To: wonk who wrote (5960)	11/14/1999 2:27:00 PM
From: timester	Respond to of 12823

I too would like to thank and give kudos to yourself and to the several very educated posters on this thread. I was wondering if anyone could comment on Unique Broadband Systems - V.UBS, their equipment and their potential. uniquesys.com. They have released that they are about to sign a large contract to supply equipment which would fit into the "Last Mile' description. It is believed that this contract is with XM Satellite radio and involves a global network of 'deals in the works'. The company intends to move the Nasdac in the near future and has the promise of huge gains for investors. Comments are appreciated. Thanks

To: wonk who wrote (5960)	11/15/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Respond to of 12823

Hi WW: Two great posts! CSCO is out today with a VOFDM business announcement: biz.yahoo.com As you noted, ADAP's ``white paper' is highly misleading since it gives the impression VOFDM is targeted at mobile communications, which is definitively not the case. Obviously, ADAP and CAMP are probably the two companies most threatened by VOFDM. They need to persuade potential users (WCOM and others) to place in orders today instead of waiting for CSCO's equipment. Dave Horne's comment about the merits of ADAP's system versus OFDM as being a rehash of CAP vs DMT is right on the money. ADAP's mention of using an equalizer being preferable to OFDM modulation (which has a simple one-tap equalizer per channel) is exactly the old CAP vs DMT argument. However, equalizer design for wireless channels can be quite tough since multipath propagation can create deep notches in the channel frequency response. So, the advantages of OFDM over straight QAM are more pronounced than those of DMT over CAP. The ADAP point about the complexity and higher cost of OFDM chips is of course well taken. I also second PeterE's suggestion to take a peak at submissions to IEEE 802.16. Many of the submissions are self-serving, but it is instructive to see which issues get debated. Best regards, Bernard Levy

To: wonk who wrote (5960)	12/5/1999 8:26:00 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

wireless - (Aaarrggh! 15 minute correction - posted to wrong thread. Apologies to all) Wi-LAN has envisioned a number of potential uses for WOFDM. As you state in your excellent post, we shouldn't mix apples and oranges. Your comments on VOFDM vs WOFDM in a fixed environment were helpful. People like me (a carpenter) spend a great amount of time "drilling down" to a knowledge level where we can even ask an intelligent question. Where the confusion has arisen is that Wi-LAN also has designs on the mobile market. I think that many of us were confused by the potential applications of WOFDM, in both mobile and fixed applications, and even satellite transmission. I think there's also some confusion, for some of us, in discussing things like MMDS, LMDS, etc. My understanding of these terms was generic, whereas, in the States, these functions seem to have been apportioned to certain (licensed) frequencies - a situation not necessarily true on the international front. The use of the word "best" in RF propagation issues was unfortunate; what it meant was "commercially viable". Perhaps a better way to phrase the question is: " Which implementation can deliver and send the most error-free data at the lowest cost per bit? " Your point on the question of signal degradation below 5 GHz was well taken, as was your whole post. ____________________________________________________________ Neither the questions about IPRs or commercial viability can or will be solved here. We all agree on that. Only time will resolve these questions. And there does not appear to be any aspect of VOFDM that cannot be successfully countered and "tweaked" with WOFDM. It seems that events have taken an unpredictable turn for both Wi-LAN and Cisco. However, there is no sign that Wi-LAN has been deflected from its course. I still believe that Cisco's effort was preemptive, and that it was designed to cut Wi-LAN off before the company could gain any momentum, and market share. Certainly, a good try by Cisco; good business tactics. But unless VOFDM is measurably superior to WOFDM in terms of commercial viability, early signs are that Cisco has failed. Best regards, Jim