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 : Ericsson overlook? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (2716)	2/2/1999 11:08:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

Peter - The quantity of data that can be encoded and modulated in a given bandwidth is independent of carrier frequency. Actually in a cell system, where the 'noise' in signal-to-noise ratio is from neighboring cells' signals, this is true to first order, but not completely true. The reason is that higher frequencies attenuate faster and thus interfere less with the neighboring cells even independent of cell spacing. In a typical city environment a 2GHz signal will be 3 or 4 dB more attenuated 1 km out than a 800 MHz signal, and that results in several dB improvement in S/N even for the same cell sizes. Clark

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (2716)	2/2/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5390

Peter, no sidestep! I pointed out I was wrong about the bandwidth and posted the correct information which gives a better picture which is more accurate because it shows that practical matters such as attenuation of signals does mean higher frequencies can carry more data. Not being a radio frequency exponent, I got confused and attributed the extra capacity at 2GHz instead of 820 MHz to the frequency. As you say, bandwidth not frequency, is mainly where it's at, but as Clark points out, that is only part of the picture. If we had directional antennae on our handsets, we would have even more capacity at high frequencies. Line-of-sight laser-based WLL would really pour the data down the pipe. I feel uncomfortable being tossed into the same sidestepping, denial and avoidance tank as Tero and El BS. Please let me out! Foundations have done their dash. WLL in cdmaOne and cdma2000 are gaining ground. The Nortel order in Mexico isn't intended as a way of them reducing their profit forecasts or trying to stubbornly prove a point. Also, Australia is now heavily into cdmaOne, contrary to Tero's claims a while ago. Hutchison and Samsung joining others in hurrying it along. Maurice