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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mightylakers who wrote (11436)	6/7/2001 6:14:45 PM
From: Rich Bloem	Respond to of 196701

ML, it looks to me like the article was written 1-2 years ago. Don't know how they could have any numbers based on anything other than gut feelings and their own agenda. Don't believe at all that the HDR numbers were a typo.

To: mightylakers who wrote (11436)	6/7/2001 6:43:55 PM
From: Dennis Roth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196701

There is an asterisk next to where the 33Kbps figure first appears in figure three, where they explain they took the published 600Kbps figure and applied a devisor based on what they guess the number of users per cell will be. They don't apply such a devisor to the numbers in any other column. They don't try to guess the number of users per cell sector for 1XRTT, EDGE, or Metricom and then divide the published average download throughput by it. If HDR were really slower than 1XRTT, why after field testing it, is KDDI planning on deploying it after deploying 1XRTT? Why go backwards? No. It is not a typo. The HDR numbers did not support the thesis of the paper, which is Metricom is the best. So they manipulated the data to get the desired result. They were so transparent about it, that it destroys the effectiveness of the paper for those who bother to read footnotes.