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 (16942)	10/22/1998 12:06:00 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

engineer, Go easy there. Although Rajala's peculiar stance on WLL has confused you, me and everyone else, he has been at the heart of a very insightful and informative discussion. I only trust he's not on Qualude (sp?). Think of it as a small step for the engineers and a giant leap for the technically neophytes. Thanx to all for the WLL Edutainment. nf Rajala, How does "WLL is a dog" relate to "WAG the dog"? Answer: They are both shoesational stories.

To: engineer who wrote (16942)	10/22/1998 2:46:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 152472

engineer, Clark, Something you guys might understand; patents.ibm.com

To: engineer who wrote (16942)	10/23/1998 2:55:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

>My "friend" Q did NOT say that singalling was the problem. >You have said this more than 3 times now and still you have nothing >to back it up. There is no signalling. You have had 3 responses as >to how it works. It is NOT signalling, this never changes. It is >still one bit every 20 ms frame of 192 bits (if you cared to read >the standard). What changes is the statistics of the channel and >the ability of DSP software loops to track the power control. >A better estimatation allows the power control loops to track >closer, thus providing the best estimate of the channel and >getting another 3 dB out of the users by allowing more to the >stacked as addtitive white noise in the channel. Also there is >less probability that users will all suddenly move around, thus >requireing more handoff channel reserve channels. I have always wondered, engineer, whether you wear one of those funny engineer hats when you write your postings. I think we should be told. OK so you say there is no signalling problem. Then you say you save 2/3 of the capcity by not having more accurate power control and by not having to deal with handoffs. Well, power control and handoff are signalling. If I read your last sentence above correctly (which is difficult since it appears to make no sense whatsoever) you are trying to prove some capacity advantage on saved signalling. Anyways, my point is this: WLL is useless concept, because it offers insignificant savings over CDMA1 and CDMA1 is far superior a proposal. >I do not know what your "CDMA1" tehcnology is, since it is not what >has been proposed by anyone. Is this CDMAOne, CDMA2000, IS-95A, >IS-95C, WCDMA, BCDMA? Please enumerate on this so that I can >understand if this is the difference in our communications? No wonder you have had hard time understanding my postings. >..yet you rant on with such authority. Please present your >articles and MBA's reports so that we can all read them. I have no authority. There's no need to present articles and MBA's reports since they are all for WLL. I think WLL concept is a dog. - rajala