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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (10142)	1/23/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 12468

Bernard Peter and all educated wireless techies - OK I give in. Is there a book like Basic Wireless for Idiots? I think I'd like to get a bit better informed. regards, L

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (10142)	1/24/1999 2:33:00 PM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 12468

Thanks much Peter (stop in any time)- Do you know whether the systems being built are robust enough so that during signal attenuation (rain fade or otherwise) the receiver rate simply adapts down? Or is it possible the signal will be lost? Of course, the concern is the stability of a lifeline link over BBFW. Do you see the possibility of somehow guaranteeing lowband POTS-like voice function during severe weather occurences? If not, perhaps the model will be to utilize telco copper as lifeline backup while BBFW is exploited for the emerging highband data/multimedia interactions? Also, I have found references to LMDS being asynchronous (like 5 to 1). I'm guessing as with xDSL, this is arbitrary in how the channel is used. Perhaps the equipment will eventually be designed to maximize the channel arbitrarily in the direction needed as some xDSL technologies have offered. I thought I recently read a post from Bernard (maybe on Yahoo?) saying that LMDS would be symmetric. Any comments or clarification on this Bernard/anyone? Also, I found an interesting tutorial at: "FREQUENCIES FOR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS" mlesat.com and comments at: "Rain Attenuation" telesat.ca I also found the following comments. (anyone know what the specific dollar cost tradeoff for increasing power is? And is it more an equipment cost or a power usage cost?): "...According to Raines, the T1Plus can handle up to 100 concurrent sessions. The dish measures 1.8 meters in diameter—on the large side for the system's frequency spectrum. Says Raines: "We use the same size antenna everywhere because it gives better reliability." For one thing, the larger antenna lessens rain fade, a problem in the 11GHz to 17GHz frequency in which the system operates. In addition, the system's uplink power control monitors transmit power, giving it a boost if it falls below a predetermined level. Planning For The Future Another reason for the larger antenna is that it accommodates higher transmission speeds, which Raines sees coming as the Intellicom product matures. "You can either go to a larger antenna or a higher-wattage transmitter. Transmitter power is expensive. If a customer wanted to go to a 256-Kbps uplink off a 1.2-meter antenna, they might need such a high-wattage transmitter that [it] would not be a cost-effective solution for them anymore. If you start with a larger antenna, you pay for it once—it's not as expensive, and it doesn't affect your customer's cost much...." from zdnet.com and two recent WinStar referencing articles: "Wireless Rites Of Initiation -- It's prime time for point-to-multipoint; is it ready?" techweb.com "TeleCom Act Turns Three -- Reality Can Be Harsh For The Children Of The Telecom Revolution" techweb.com and lastly a prediction of the FCC's near-term response to ruling on cable access: "FCC Likely to Punt on Unbundling" multichannel.com