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 : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (1806)	2/22/2000 12:11:00 PM
From: Mark Laubach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

Not to the mutual exclusion of others working just fine too? Ok, accepting that for now, if the others are working "just fine" too, what's the advantage you meant to say S-CDMA offers? There are two ways I look at this: 1) FUD factor regarding not knowing exactly how the cable plant will plagued with ingress noise, and S-CDMA claims to give more assurance than other methods (this is in an all coaxial plant, and 2) deploying early may give the cable operator an initial revenue stream before they've fully got their plant problems whipped into shape. As noise conditions are very plant dependent, I can say that S-CDMA will work on some plants where the noise conditions make it difficult, initially for QPSK/16QAM . However, there are also a lot of plants where QPSK will work just fine creating an initial revenue stream while the operator plans their tuning and upgrades. What galls me is the large broadbrush statements about S-CDMA without attention being paid to the other very workable solutions; i.e. put it all in perspective. Also, as noted early, symmetric systems actually get in your way when the plant is clean and/or upgraded to HFC. Mark