I would agree that, at the moment, OFDM techniques dominate the discussion...
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeahbut, it appears QAM has won? Yes? > LTE doesn’t have much in common with CDMA anymore. > > *From:* Chuck Macenski via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:43 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail > > Actually...CDMA techniques (PN modulation) re-channel a band based on > time rather than frequency. In a multi point environment, this allows > multiple people to share a frequency bandwidth in a not terribly > inefficient way when all of the simultaneous communication paths are > considered. > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Yeah, isochronous pseudorandom noise mod/demod techniques will pull >> info from sewer. I think the deep space network uses some of those >> techniques. But PN modulation does not help throughput. It wastes >> bandwidth. >> >> Speed/interference immunity/narrow channels – pick one. >> >> *From:* Bill Prince via Af <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:27 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail >> >> The holy grail would be the ability to modulate a signal and receive >> it correctly in the face of withering interference. >> >> The GPS system accomplishes that through the technique of encoding the >> data within "pseudo noise". The only problem being that GPS data is >> relatively static compared to what we deal with. >> >> >> bp >> >> On 10/25/2014 10:15 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: >> >> I think folks without deep experience in either 1) operating a WISP or >> 2)without deep experience in electrodynamics and modulation (99.999% of the >> general population) somehow think that Moore’s Law applies to wireless. >> >> The only way to scale this this stuff in a way approximating Moore’s Law >> is to just keep adding cell/ap sites. >> >> I read a book back in 1990 that outlined this problem for the nascent >> cell phone industry. The book is still spot on. >> >> *From:* Rory Conaway via Af <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 11:41 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail >> >> >> Or looky, looky, AC PTMP MU-MIMO. Imagine what that would do for White >> Space. >> >> >> >> Rory >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af >> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 10:22 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail >> >> >> >> Sterling, thank you! I think you and me must be the only ones who can see >> the elephant...... OH LOOKY LOOKY AC PTMP!! >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Is it just me, or is no one realizing that we are still not that far from >> 2005 with wireless. >> >> >> >> Yes, we have 300-1Gbps capable radios. >> >> But they trade that for larger channel allocations and even more signal >> to noise requirements. >> >> >> >> But the spectrum allocations haven’t changed enough to use these new >> features to their fullest in a radio dense environment. >> >> >> >> When doing cost analysis in my area last year for wireless I realized I >> had to forklift upgrade most of my network, and build towers out in a half >> mile range. >> >> >> >> This was to get the 30Mbps plan rates to really work. >> >> >> >> The costs were skyrocketing because of all the towers and sectors. >> >> >> >> I think the real winners of late are still the rural and low density >> wireless provider domains. >> >> They are the ones with clean enough spectrum to cost this competitively. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Solorza >> via Af >> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:41 PM >> *To:* Animal Farm >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Holy Grail >> >> >> >> Bring out the Holy Grenade of Antioch... >> >> Jaime Solorza >> >> On Oct 24, 2014 5:56 PM, "Jayson Baker via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Anyone else get this email? >> >> >> >> Anyone know what it is? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >> >> >> >
