Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 176.18

+2.0%

10:15 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (18898)	2/8/2002 11:47:09 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) of 196450

re: sync channel ========= Let's be very clear. LG had a problem with a handset due to what KDDI perceives as an ambiguity with the Specification... an ambiguity that does not appear to have tripped up Samsung or other vendors. KDDI (and everyone else in 3GPP2) believes that MOT and NOK had handset problems because they fucked up. MOT and NOK fucked up. MOT fucked up. NOK fucked up. That is refreshing. ========== LU's comment: Lucent wishes to record the following: "Lucent has been a most vocal supporter for a quick, standards-based solution to the Sync Channel problem to meet the needs of the industry, perhaps more so than any other proponents including Motorola. However, Lucent strongly objects to the Sync Channel Adhoc Group pursuing a non-standards-based solution within a 3GPP2 standards forum given that it is highly unlikely that any proposals to be considered will include a standards-based solution (in whole or in part). These objections are based on legal considerations, and Lucent must obtain legal advice before we can continue to participate in this process, which may no longer be covered by the normal standards-fora safe harbor rules. To my understanding, LU perceives that the Sync Channel Adhoc Group is presently pursuing a non-standards-based solution, and that it can not participate in the process. Further, LU perceives that it's highly unlikely that the Group will produce a standards-based solution. In reviewing the Ad Hoc requirements: • A single specification such that a Release A compliant mobile is interoperable with Release A and all prior standards compliant infrastructure. • Resolve the Sync Channel Issue such that there is no impact to currently deployed (i.e., Release 0 orIS-95) equipment (MSs and Infrastructure). Requirements appear to leave little room for a solution, which may be the source of LU's frustrations. Powers behind a sync channel fix were holding Release A hostage to a resolution. Clearly, the Steering Committee was motivated to terminate this condition. Further, the SC has set appropriate, though perhaps impossible to attain requirements for a fix. Perhaps the SC sees the logic of the simplest and most appropriate of solutions..... recall non-standard compliant handsets. R.I.H.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next