Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3612)	1/24/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Are you sure? www3.techstocks.com Wasn't aware Nokia Asics were available without the phone. Don't have an OEM license from Qualcomm. "CDMA is Nokia's weakest product, and we don't see much improvement this year." I have friends who would dearly love for the 6185 to work as well as the Samsung SCH2000 so they can dump AT&T and keep the phone games. How 'bout it?

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3612)	1/24/2000 8:07:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

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