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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3309)	11/15/1999 10:27:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 13582

Maurice - You and I are mostly in agreement. I guess the gist of my comment was that you might be surprised at the difference in cost between VBR-rt and Available Bit Rate (ABR). (I'm still trying to find the pricing differential for the internet backbone or some other significant pipe.) Clark PS Interesting analysis of traffic flow. As you probably know there is a lot of cutting edge work on road traffic modeling. A friend of mine got their PhD from CalTech in exactly that. Yet another got it in internet traffic control. Non-trivial stuff.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3309)	11/15/1999 10:32:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

AT&T Seeks Non-Infringement Ruling on Cell Phone System Patent Seattle, Washington, Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Wireless Services Inc., the world's top cellular phone system operator, asked a federal judge to rule it's not infringing a mobile phone system patent held by GTE Wireless Inc. by using phones made by the No. 1 cell phone maker, Nokia Oyj of Finland. In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle Oct. 29, Redmond, Washington-based AT&T Wireless claims Alpharetta, Georgia-based GTE has already accused Nokia and may accuse AT&T of infringing a GTE patent awarded in March for a system containing remotely programmable cell phones. AT&T also says Nokia has indicated it will ultimately hold AT&T responsible for GTE's claims of infringement because Nokia makes cell phones for the AT&T system. ''AT&T's sales of Nokia cellular telephones will likely be adversely affected by the continuing threats'' by GTE of patent infringement, AT&T says in the suit. The company asks a judge to rule that neither AT&T, nor Nokia's phones, infringe the GTE patent, and to award damages and legal fees. Officials of GTE, whose shares rose 1/16 to 73 15/16, could not immediately be reached to comment on the suit. Shares of New York-based AT&T Corp. rose 5/16 to 46. American depositary receipts of Nokia fell 2 1/16 to 120 3/16 in New York. Where does QCOM fit into this? Will QCOM run in to the same patent infringment? Greg

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3309)	11/16/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: w molloy	Respond to of 13582

Data Service MAurice - I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The freeway traffic analogy is sound. One has discrete units (cars/packets) taking up space on a limited resource. it seems like a software management problem to me and subscribers should play the predominant role by defining their needs on their packets when they push 'send'. They'd define their needs by the price plans they select. If this was implemented, it actually degrade service and reduce the number of users who could access the network. (see Post Script). Your wish to provide to top flight data service is available anyway. There are two ways to access a data network service. Connection oriented CO and connectionless oriented CL. CO services are just like voice. You connect to the network and stay connected irrespective of whether you are physically sending anything. With a CL service, you only connect when you have something to send. All packet services are CL. CL services allow the maximum number of users to share a fixed resource. A CO service can provide the deluxe connection you desire but at a price. You will be charged per minute. You will also be charged for the bandwidth you consume per minute. Your basic voice service is equivalent to a 14.4Kbit data service. So a 56Kbit data link is equivalent to 4 voice calls. A 1Mbit CO data link would be the equivalent to around 70 voice calls. A fast CO link (where the link is shared) is obviously uneconomical. CL packet services are fair. All packets are treated equally for a good reason. The number of users that can be serviced is maximised (so, good for the network providers). If you start to prioritise packets from a particular user, you will slow the network down for all other users. Look at what happens when you have someone doing 50MPH in the middle lane of a freeway? The analogy is the same. All networks use a packet based protocol. In the final analysis, the inherent delays to the packets are undetectable to the user. Gross delays are another issue. For example, greedy network providers oversubscribing their network. Faulty queing algorithms at the routers; badly designed or cheaply rolled out wireless networks where many users experience fade etc etc..... Hope this helps w. PS A reasonably accessible academic text is Tenenbaum A "Computer Networks" published by Prentice Hall