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.

Non-Tech : Amati investors -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (31231)	11/24/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: JW@KSC	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 31386

And the Beat Goes On Subject:RE: HAM bands specification/VDSL working document editing Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:29:29 -0800 From: "John M. Cioffi" To: "Vladimir Oksman" , "Qi Wang" , Thierry Pollet" , "Miguel Peeters" CC: "T1 E14" References: 1 Actually, I have a question for Qi and maybe Vlad: For some reason, I still keep VDSL system requirements addendum document in T1E1.4 by TS's preference. Vlad, I think the new noise models have to go in that, but Qi, there were some other things in the August meeting that I am supposed to put in the document (it was deferred presentation to December, so I will R1 it and present in Florida instead) - can you remember what they were? Also, no sense you and I overlapping on presentation - so please advise as to how we can make efficient use of time. I should not be doing same things you are. I do not want this VDSL SR editorship to get in the way of any CAP/DMT fight and just want to do it for best interests of all, which is why I write here. As SR-alone editor, I can manage that without causing bias - of course, Qi needs to do any more formal VDSL document because everyone knows where I stand on line code so its best for me not to do that while there is no decision in the VDSL area because I would necessarily bias it and write a DMT standard if I were editor! There is probably a good split of work here somewhere and if you two know and agree, we're not likely to have any problems. Best Regards, John C. _________________________________________________________ At 05:12 PM 11/22/99 -0500, Vladimir Oksman wrote: >Dear Qi, > > I don't think VDSL Coalition was trying to change the >international HAM bands. Probably some mistake is in the tables (I don't know which ones!). I suggest to refer ANSI system requirements data for the North American specification. > >Kind regards, > >Vladimir. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Qi Wang > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 11:25 AM > > To: Thierry Pollet; Miguel Peeters; Vladimir Oksman > > Cc: T1 E14 > > Subject: HAM bands specification/VDSL working document editing > > > > > > Miguel, Thierry and Vladimir, > > > > When I edited the T1E1.4 VDSL working document and tried > > to put the international HAM band frequency tables in Annex that can be pointed by both DMT and SCM implementation, I found out that there are two tables for bands recognized by ANSI and ETSI respectively in Alliance contribution (see attached -275, Table 4 and Table 5 ), and there is one table for international bands in > > Coalition contribution (see attached Table 5). However, The > >Collation table does not agree with either of the Alliance > >tables. I also noticed that Alliance ETSI table agrees with the table in ETSI VDSL document, and Collation > >table disagrees Alliance ANSI table on the starting > >frequency of the first band and the stop frequency of the last band. > > > > Even though the differences are minor, I would think we > >should be able to have common part for the HAM bands > >specifications, no matter we include one table or two > >tables (ANSI and ETSI). Would you please help > > sort it out? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Qi > >