as for "far superior,"; name the criteria under which you presume "far superior". this is not a test. we've already studied some of the data, including MOS scores, dropped calls, handover, tranmsission error redundancy, and so on
In my opinion a phone is far superior if it can successfully place a call in fringe area while another phone, in the same location, cannot.
A phone is also "far superior" if it meets carrier technical specifications and another doesn't.
CDMA network performance and tuning is dependent upon the nuances of the phones that are being used on the network. Carriers want to be able to offer potential subscribers a wide range of high-performance phones. But if carriers approve handsets that are on the fringe of acceptable performance, then the capacity and/or reliability and/or sound quality of the entire network can be impacted in a negative manner. The network parameters might need to be "loosened up" a bit to accommodate phones that are not quite within specs and this could reduce capacity.
Considering this, your claims that it looked like "someone was caught with their hand in the cookie jar" appear suspect. Considering that carriers want more and better choices for their subscribers, why would they fail to approve a state-of-art solution that was ready for market unless it didn't meet specs?
Other sincere ideas, thoughts welcome,
Bux |
