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: freak.monster1 who wrote (17092)	10/25/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>There may be some discrepencies in Rajala's dogma: >(endless drivel about various sentences cut from a number of >postings) Wheee... I have always wondered whether anyone actually bothers to read my opinionated postings (especially on such a brainless and uninteresting topic as the WLL is). I'm thrilled that not only read but also try to "analyse". (Also I'm thrilled because this is the first time somebody complains I'm not dogmatic enough.) Sanjay, you seem to have a problem with my "dogma" on whether CDMA1 eats resources or not. Let's see. - "Engineer" and his friend "Q" (who prefer to operate under their real names) claim that by having better distance determination and by not having handoff the WLL has x 3 times the capacity of CDMA1. - For me this appeared to be very dubious because that would mean that the signalling for these two functions would consume in some unexplained and mysterious ways 2/3 of the CDMA1 capacity. - In the course of the debate there was a third opinion that the "real" performance of the WLL over CDMA1 is little less than x 2 (IMO: still doubtfull). - OK so do I believe that this is the case (CDMA1 being such a big waster on signalling)?. I dunno. Find it unlikely. All I am pointing out is that if someone claims that by leaving the distance and handoff functions out the capacity suddenly triples, that points out to a super-hyper inefficient signalling of CDMA1. So, Sanjay, I have no dogma on this (I have another DOGma). For a nice ending lets have a field day with this example of a very careful analysis by Sanjay: >Still. I need to understand your position on WLL CDMA. In post >16857 you write: > >"First of all, let's remember where the 3 x capacity advantage > for WLL is supposed to come from: the reduced non-traffic > signalling, such as power control etc. which is estimated to > take 2/3 of CDMA1 capacity (!) when it takes only between 1/8 > and 1/16 of GSM capacity. We are talking about the same basic > functions, nicht wahr? Do we all accept that CDMA1 eats > bandwidth like a lewinsky with 10 x more inefficient signalling > than GSM?" > > To an unsuspecting reader this would give the distinct impression > that you think CDMA wastes 2/3 bandwidth in signaling. Does it really "give the distinct impression"? I rather suggest that it "puts the whole idea under dubious light". Sanjay, some hints for you: How about "is supposed to come from"? Little disclaimer there, no? Suddenly an exclamation mark in brackets, what could all this mean? How about the ending "Do we all accept", does it contain some questioning, perhaps? - rajala