Talk:Trellis coded modulation

Added some discussion. The details of TCM are rather complex for a reader who lacks a PHD in data communications, so I opted to provide a readable (and hopefully understandable) overview.

user:jlpayton 9-Nov-2005

The article uses the term Convolutional code. No one except a telecom expert will know what that word means. Consider having an expert rewrite this article in simpler terms. Invitatious 02:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 - July - 2006

Article is fine, if anything it's too simplistic. Anybody who searches for trellis modulation has to know some background. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.203.212.185 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)

This link here seems to be offering a description that makes sense to those who don't understand what convolution means: https://sciencegrants.dest.gov.au/SciencePrize/Pages/Doc.aspx?name=previous_winners/Aust1997Ungerboeck.htm (anonymous)

It was CCITT, not ITU in 1980's

Before the ITU, CCITT was the one the standardized the V. standards. Also, there was no CCITT/ITU standard of 19.2 Kbps -- that's a Telebit propritary standard (PEP). Mdrejhon 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Channel Capacity ?

If the channel in question is the twisted pair cable, I hardly think that the Shannon Channel capacity is 35 kBits/s, considering that standard residential ADSL links utilize the same twisted pair wiring as the POTS line. The Shannon channel capacity for twisted pair wires is much higher, depending on several factors, such as noise power on the channel, length of the twisted pair. It can be as high as a Gbit/s over short runs of cable (several meters) with only thermal noise present. (Anonymous)

The channel in question isn't just the cable, it's the entire POTS infrastructure (for voice), including filters that limit bandwidth to 3 kHz. Combining that with typical noise margins gives you 35 kbit/s. (ADSL bypasses this filtering to achive the higher rates.) 198.99.128.100 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too simplistic

Most definetly too simplistic. Ungerboeck centered rather than topic centered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotroxp (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely too simple. I have no background except college physics. It was hard to understand the actual modulation technique due to lack of detail. I had to infer the actual technique from how it was able to reduce error. InsightSoul (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]