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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CAtechTrader who wrote (80212)	9/13/2000 1:16:37 PM
From: The Verve	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

CaTech, There certainly is a noticeable difference in voice quality from TDMA vs. CDMA. TDMA phones are notorious for breaking up during midstream conversation. Whether this is due to inteference, weakness in design, power, whatever, it exists and pisses people off all over the world. BUT, not being able to call or receive calls is not entirely a function of the limitations in TDMA. Might not be close enough to a cell tower, that is all. In Los Angeles, Sprint has many pockets of no service and weak signals. They're getting better, but they're still there. AT&T, on the other hand, has excellent signal, nearly everywhere you go in the LA area. I presume they have better cell site coverage. I have a friend who it took a while to convince to buy Q last year. He eventually relented and bought Q, but only after fighting tooth and nail with me, arguing Q was a bad investment, because 'Sprint phones suck.' He was rabid about his argument and fought vigorously because he couldn't get calls practically ANYWHERE with his Sprint CDMA phone. I told him, based on HIS experience in LA, that was the case, but that is not the case in much of the country. Since last year Sprint has gotten better, but they still have a bit of site buildout to do in LA. Verve