<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Trade-off between cost and goodput in wireless: Replacing transmitters with coding · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1203.2841/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1203.2841/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Trade-off between cost and goodput in wireless: Replacing transmitters with coding — mentioned by Medard</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4692557</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1203.2841:4692557</guid><pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:13:16 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The codes here are not like conventional FECs, such as block codes (think Reed-Solomon and their ilk) or rateless codes (think Fountain Codes and the such). Such codes can be used over UDP readily. Using such codes over TCP is quite difficult. Besides the usual difficulties, traditional codes have a structure that precludes their composability. There are several issues with this. One is that they cannot be re-encoded without being decoded. The ability to re-encode blindly is crucial to achieving capacity. For a theoretical treatment of this, I would refer you to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1203.2841/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.NI</category></item></channel></rss>
