4 ms·

...which, assuming you're sending and receiving equal amounts, doubles the amount you can send in a given time period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(tel

...which, assuming you're sending and receiving equal amounts, doubles the amount you can send in a given time period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(telecommunications) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_(telecommunications)

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Don't be trite. Receiving is completely different from sending. "You" doesn't include the other guy, in my dictionary. It may raise the amount that can be sent over the network in toto, assuming that data demand is the same in all directions. Which it almost never is. So what they've done is, they allow the data uplink to occur simultaneously with the downlink. A valid claim is, the latency of data is improved - you don't have to wait/schedule your sends around the receive traffic. Which can matter quite a bit in the bulk of cases e.g. downloading http while jabbing buttons/sending commands up to the server.
- troymc 16y ago
  Some people don't know what they're going to say until they say it. If such people could send and receive at the same time, they would be getting more information per unit time.
- rmrm 16y ago
  it's fairly standard terminology...you've doubled the amount of data that can be sent over a given chunk of spectrum per unit time, without changing the modulation/encoding scheme (bits/hz). A normal full duplex FDD system takes twice the bandwidth to pass the same amount of information as this theoretically can. Rather than think about bursty, asymmetric Ethernet bits, consider passing something like a fully allocated T1 over it. Symmetric TDM links aren't totally dead, there are a lot of T1 radios out there. What used to take X Hz of bandwidth, theoretically can be done in X/2...without changing the modulation. I don't think it will actually be used that way, but it is a breakthrough of sorts to be able to do so.
hristov 16y ago
I don't think that is the case. Suppose a given channel (e.g. a frequency) has a maximum information per second it can carry X, this system will not allow 2X information to be carried. It will allow the information carrying capacity of the channel to be split, such that each side can carry a maximum amount of information A and B respectively such that A+B<=X.
- 83457 16y ago
  "this system will not allow 2X information to be carried" I believe that is the entire point of the article. To allow double the capacity between two devices. The original capacity would be the amount of data that could be sent by a single device. However if both devices can send at the same time that is double capacity.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

Don't be trite. Receiving is completely different from sending. "You" doesn't include the other guy, in my dictionary. It may raise the amount that can be sent over the network in toto, assuming that data demand is the same in all directions. Which it almost never is. So what they've done is, they allow the data uplink to occur simultaneously with the downlink. A valid claim is, the latency of data is improved - you don't have to wait/schedule your sends around the receive traffic. Which can matter quite a bit in the bulk of cases e.g. downloading http while jabbing buttons/sending commands up to the server.

troymc 16y ago
Some people don't know what they're going to say until they say it. If such people could send and receive at the same time, they would be getting more information per unit time.
rmrm 16y ago
it's fairly standard terminology...you've doubled the amount of data that can be sent over a given chunk of spectrum per unit time, without changing the modulation/encoding scheme (bits/hz). A normal full duplex FDD system takes twice the bandwidth to pass the same amount of information as this theoretically can. Rather than think about bursty, asymmetric Ethernet bits, consider passing something like a fully allocated T1 over it. Symmetric TDM links aren't totally dead, there are a lot of T1 radios out there. What used to take X Hz of bandwidth, theoretically can be done in X/2...without changing the modulation. I don't think it will actually be used that way, but it is a breakthrough of sorts to be able to do so.

hristov 16y ago

I don't think that is the case. Suppose a given channel (e.g. a frequency) has a maximum information per second it can carry X, this system will not allow 2X information to be carried. It will allow the information carrying capacity of the channel to be split, such that each side can carry a maximum amount of information A and B respectively such that A+B<=X.

83457 16y ago
"this system will not allow 2X information to be carried" I believe that is the entire point of the article. To allow double the capacity between two devices. The original capacity would be the amount of data that could be sent by a single device. However if both devices can send at the same time that is double capacity.