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 : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/14/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: gauguin	Respond to of 12468

SteveG, Thanks, as always, for your posts. In the old days,we used to say the limit for 38GHz was 5 miles, but that was only under the best of weather conditions. With newer (post me) technology to boost signal I find it hard to believe that the average" is only 1.5, but I would, as always, welcome Bernard's point of view on this. Regards, Barbara

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/14/1999 5:13:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Hi Steve: The conterpoint to the higher attenuation at higher freqencies is that antennas of the same size have a larger gain as the frequencies go up-- because the wavelength is smaller, the antenna looks larger, and has a bigger gain. If the attenuation increases by x, the transmitter and receiver antenna gains also increase by x each. Of course the increased receiver gain will affect not only the signal to be recovered, but background noise as well. So, the increased attenuation at higher frequencies is more than compensated by increased antenna gains (unless you scale down the size of the antennas in the same proportion as the shrinking of the wavelengths). Another factor is of course that higher frequencies have more rain fading. The fading factor is usually selected to accommodate the worst weather conditions at a specific location. So this factor tends to be larger in places like Florida than in dry areas of the Southwest. The smaller cell size used at higher frequencies is primarily due to conservative rain fade considerations. However, in dense urban areas there are other factors in the selection of cell sizes: line of sight availability, and user density. In high user density areas, it is better to have more cells, to ensure enough BW is available per user. When I did my analysis for the TGNT BW transfer, I had concluded that 100MHz at 18GHz was worth about 125MHz at 24GHz. Roughly, I would say TGNT's 400MHz are probably worth 550MHz at 38Ghz-- less in dry areas, more in wet areas. Best regards, Bernard Levy

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/14/1999 5:28:00 PM
From: Steven Bowen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

"(BOW, got any equivalence #s?)." Well, since I was just looking into the same for ARTT... Problem is, I don't remember how many channel pops WinStar is claiming lately, since the CVUS buy. Probably somewhere around 1000 million channel pops. On the ARTT thread, I estimated WNP to have the approx equivalent of 1368 million channel pops. Therefore WinStar's licenses alone would be worth somewhere around 1000/1368 * $695M, or $508M. Remember, licenses went so cheap at the auction that McCaw can pay double now and still get what looks like a good value.

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/15/1999 8:48:00 AM
From: gabor boda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

Steve G, You didn't write a whole lot about the WCII presentation. I am assuming that you were not overly impressed?

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/15/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: MangoBoy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

<< ON-NET: * As of Q3 33% average in mature markets * % of On-Net orders in Millennium buildings so far: NY-93%, BOST-73% CHI-67% DALLAS-65% LA-56% >> these look like the Nov. 1998 numbers WCII provided in their 12/17 press release (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/981217/winstar_4_1.html). Surprised BR is peddling old data. The December numbers have to be much better, right? Speaking of which, WCII's quarterly "line installations and orders" preannounce press release is now past due.

To: SteveG who wrote (10012)	1/16/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Steve: The conservative limits of 38 GHz is a 1.5 mile radius? 28 GHz =2.5 miles? and 24 GHz = 3? In the loss of reach in higher freq's, how exactly is the equivalencies that you've previously discussed realized? The only way to answer your question is to specify 1) the modulation 2) the total path loss that the link must tolerate 3) a grade of service. Presuming the following: 1. QPSK modulation 2. Point to multipoint (90 degree sector antennas at hub) — (to Bernard's point, I have presumed that the antennas scale down as frequency increases, i.e., all frequency bands have the same antenna gain) 3. 99.999% availability (5.3 minutes per year outage due to rain) the three frequency bands look something like this for the best and worst rain regions in the continental US; 28 GHz .49 to 1.3 miles for 38 GHz .42 to 1.0 miles for 24 GHz .57 to 1.5 miles If you drop down to 99.9% availability (536 minutes or about 8.75 hours) 38 GHz performance looks like this: 1.0 to 4.0 miles Also, if one presumes point-to-point (add about 20 dB to the tolerable path loss), 38 GHz looks like this: 99.999% .65 to 1.8 miles 99.9% 2.15 to 9.8 miles My calculations do not have all the "bell's and whistles" which should be there for total accuracy but the general ratios should be right given the above parameters. ww