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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (16803)	10/20/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

know you sometimes post over on techstocks (SI). Could you please copy this over there. Some of those guys are totally off on WLL: Normal mobile cell can have from 1-6 sectors, only 22 calls per sector (this goes for Qualcomms 3508i and 3519i) Normal WLL cells are exactly the same physically, but can have up to 64 calls per sector Mixed environments can have 48 calls per sector on average. Why the difference? WLL has no near far problem, no power control issues, nor does it have roaming issues or handoff issues. The removal of these obstacles increases available bandwidth for call transmission. Thanks for the messenger service to Margin or anyone who can copy this over to SI to help remove some crazy notions. One addition, There is no limit of the numbr of cells used in a high density area, but less are required than you might think. All depends on how much call blocking the local population will tolerate. Q

To: engineer who wrote (16803)	10/21/1998 5:49:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

CDMA1 appears to be massively wastefull??? To all, from "Q": >Normal mobile cell can have from 1-6 sectors, only 22 calls per >sector (this goes for Qualcomms 3508i and 3519i) > >Normal WLL cells are exactly the same physically, but can have >up to 64 calls per sector >... >Why the difference? WLL has no near far problem, no power >control issues, nor does it have roaming issues or handoff >issues. The removal of these obstacles increases available >bandwidth for call transmission. OK so now we have the CDMA side of the story. If this is to be believed looks like traffic capacity is tripling when part of the signalling is left out (!). I'm very curious why GSM uses between 1/8 and 1/16 of the air channel capacity on signalling and, according to this, CDMA needs more than 2/3. > >One addition, There is no limit of the numbr of cells used in >a high density area, but less are required than you might >think. All depends on how much call blocking the local population >will tolerate. This is what I also believe. If such a foolish move as to build a WLL network is done the capacity would not be too much of a concern. (From engineer): >when you (Rajala) publish the shortcomings of GSM, it would be nice >to differentiate between GSM problems as you have been explaining >and CDMA features which I find you know nothing about. Why the blood pressure, engineer? I find this discussion exteremly usefull. I did not know that CDMA1 wastes _most_ of the capacity on signalling. Although I still wonder why it could be possible and if it really is true. I have heard noise about the CDMA1 capacity being lower than expected, would here be an answer? Just wondering. - rajala