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 (10147)	1/24/1999 8:45:00 PM
From: DubM	Respond to of 12468

From tomorrows WSJ-Insider Transactions. Did we already know about these? The number of shares sold doesn't seem too significant. However, insider sales are never a pleasing sign. Regards to all, Dub WCII % change- -78 (Surely this does not mean a 78% decrease in insider holdings does it?) # insiders buying- 0 # insiders selling- 4 Shares sold- 165,303

To: SteveG who wrote (10147)	1/24/1999 10:59:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Respond to of 12468

Hi Steve: With respect to symmetry/asymmetry of broadband wireless service, you can set up the service to be symmetric or asymmetric. For business service, I expect the service will be symmetric. For residential service, as LMDS was originally conceived, the service will be asymmetric. It would be a terrible waste to allocate the same amount of BW to the downlink and uplinks. Note also that to use the uplink BW efficiently, the return link may need a higher power antenna, which would allow a higher-order modulation scheme than QPSK. This higher-power antenna makes sense on top of an office building, but not in a residence. With respect to what to do in rain storms, keep in mind that broadband wireless service will offer huge amounts of BW. To deal with rain conditions, the first option would be boost power, second to fall back on a less efficient modulation scheme (say downshift from 16-QAM to QPSK). Finally, one more option (I don't know if it is implemented now, but it would be feasible) would consist in using longer error correction codes, or possibly concatenated codes (similar to those used for satellite communications). This would cut into the available transmission rate, but would certainly leave plenty for essential services (such as voice), while possibly slowing down less critical services such as data transfers... In other words, the engineering technology exists to make the degradation of service very gradual (not very different from what you might see on a LAN when it gets congested). Best regards, Bernard Levy

To: SteveG who wrote (10147)	1/24/1999 11:42:00 PM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

Hi Steve, >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? Most vendors have 'patent applied for' technology to adjust to conditions >Or is it possible the signal will be lost? Of course, the concern is the stability of a lifeline link over BBFW. They usually downshift while trying to maintain services, ultimately just maintain the link. > Do you see the possibility of somehow guaranteeing lowband POTS-like voice function during severe weather occurences? QoS/CoS aware nodes would (e.g. Stanford Broadband Wireless, Triton Network Systems). petere PS does anyone know how to maintain Netscape read cache when posting a reply? (My messages read are erased when I post).