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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnG who wrote (14876)	9/5/2001 7:41:19 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

Starts out somewhat well, but then it degenerates As well as all the usual mistakes -Motorola already has the functions working in its phone. Unverified, untested, those two difficult words. Nokia was the one who first rang the alarm bell, an alarm all operators agree on, that is, Nokia is the one "up to speed". NO network in actual use has the feature activated and ONE network is anyway nothing. There has (even) been questions raised if even a "correctly" implemented system would work, debate on simulations, lab tests, and finally actual live networks, different vendors, and maybe especially: Different implications, more or less, all "correct" but how do they interact, often "not correctly" All things which are typical issues when building standards, the reason there are many stages in the process, this just one of them. Withdrawing the suggested solution was not a question "embarassment", but "in the spirit" of nondictatorial organizations, where progress is gradual and continuous. etc,etc Well, obviously BCCH-CCCH is "packet" as that is what GPRS phones use and will use until the new, additional (unluckily mandatory and unverifiable) control channel is activated, not even everywhere at once, but in certain cells, even one and off now and then, dynamically, etc.. And unluckily if one doesn't have these basic things clear one cannot go into the more difficult. But it is interesting how "common sense" and regular ability to read can be dimmed by wet dreams and emotions replacing them, "wishing it was this or that". One more, the first writer clearly has no knowledge nor understanding of how standards are built. "The Euros are letting Nokia off the hook, it seems to me. Operators have a lot of say-so in these decisions." Those two sentences together make no sense, especially not the first while the second is correct. The next sentence is totally out in orthogonal space: "It is possible that the operators don't care what they sell." In at least two orthogonal dimensions, as operators do not sell phones, phones are bought from the shelf to the right of the refrigators, a SIM card is inserted and then the phones start roaming freely (in the free, world). Another example of lack of understanding open, global standards. Ilmarinen What constantly pops up is something like the "IBM AT" standard, which is an "industrial defacto standard". That is, somebody has implemented something, and others "clone" it, this or that way. This does not work in (international) telecommuncations, the whole existence of ITU is to avoid, replace this. (the lack of this understanding is probably the most basic source for all misunderstandings??)