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* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (427)	7/16/2000 4:15:45 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Jim, Wouldn't you know? In some ways, the "loud and clear" approach runs counter to some proposed software radio principles which look to mitigate interference by making transmit levels as low in power as possible, while still allowing communications to take place under normal conditions. Here, the reasoning is that if everyone just uses as much power as they need (regulated by software, in this case), they will not be spilling into other people's air space at distances outside their normal range, thus reducing overall interference and keeping total rf energy in a given band at a minimum. Unfortunately, these measures do little to reduce the effects of microwave ovens and radar. Not to mention those bad citizens, who, you just know, will not want to play by the rules, and who will drown out all of those who do abide by the rules. [By the way, what are the concerns, if any, of wireless LAN base stations operating in the proximity of people wearing pacemakers? Just thought I'd ask.. ] The potential for interference occurring on unlicensed and unprotected rf paths seems uncannily akin to the vague conditions affecting the prospects of free-space infrared systems. Hmm... perhaps this just reinforces the need for multi-homing when using wireless LANs/MANs of these nuovo variety, encouraging the use of a variety of media on a best-case-selection, or even a load-sharing, basis. Each could account for approximately 60% of overall capacity needs, statistically more than enough under normal conditions, and only moderately tight when one or the other goes down of a moment of two, or during moments of inclemency, etc. We discussed something similar to this arrangement on the LMT thread a couple of days ago, although rather indirectly. I pointed to the Cypress building backbone and multiple media aggregation model as an example: Message 14036389 FAC

To: axial who wrote (427)	7/16/2000 4:28:39 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 46821

Jim, 'Other devices may also use the frequency band. And other devices have been using this frequency band for some time. It just hasn't been a proliferation of devices. But I bet that when some hospital deploys an 802.11b lan where there are existing ISM band devices in use, it will impact those existing devices more significantly than the existing devices would effect the lan. I don't know the hospital environment well enough to know what the impact is, but I can foresee serious problems. My belief is that WLANs will be limited to applications where they are extensions of the wired lan. And will only be used where it is impractical to use a wired infrastructure. I think that the fact that it is a shared medium will limit the deployment for any bandwidth intensive applications. I agree that it is not a non-event. I know that there are WLANs set up in a couple of airports that I have been through. I would think that the constant radar transmission there would cause problems, but it didn't. A quick search came up with frequency ranges from 1 GHz to 20 GHz for radar. JXM