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: Jon Koplik who wrote (24571)	3/21/1999 5:31:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Off topic - era of "morons" all "day trading" may be winding down. March 21, 1999 MARKET WATCH What if Day Traders Had to Pass a Test? By GRETCHEN MORGENSON NEW YORK -- The era of wide-open day trading in stocks, when any investor with money and moxie can sit down in an office and lose both, may be ending as suddenly as it dawned. Regulators, rightly worried that many day traders don't understand the risks of the practice, are starting to rein in the day-trading firms. On March 10, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange proposed a rule change to the Securities and Exchange Commission that would close a regulatory loophole used by many such firms registering as Philadelphia exchange members. And next month, for the first time, the exchange will send teams of auditors to members' offices to conduct examinations. Both moves grew out of a pattern observed lately by the Philadelphia exchange. Day-trading firms were flocking to join the exchange, making it their regulator, rather than the National Association of Securities Dealers, for example. As of Feb. 17, the exchange counted 2,318 people day-trading at member firms, an increase of more than 1,300 since last June. Why the stampede? Unlike its regulatory peers, the Philadelphia exchange has not required its off-floor traders to pass the NASD's Series 7 exam. That tough test comprehensively covers the characteristics of different investments, the securities laws, the proper way to figure margin requirements and other intricacies of finance. Instead, the exchange has asked members to complete a five-page application and to submit copies of their fingerprints. The day-trading firms may also have chosen the Philadelphia exchange because its examinations staff is decidedly smaller than the NASD's. The firms, many of them set up as limited liability companies, consider the people who trade with them professionals, not customers. This allows them to get around customer protection practices like insuring that an investment strategy is suitable to a person's financial situation. Under the exchange's proposed rule, any trader associated with a member firm would have to pass the Series 7 exam. Meyer S. Frucher, chairman and chief executive of the exchange, said the change addresses the worry that day traders know too little about investing. "We felt that people who did not have sufficient background as traders were being enticed to come in and risk large sums of money without education," he said. One of the big day-trading firms that belong solely to the Philadelphia exchange is Bright Trading of Las Vegas. The firm has 300 traders in 28 locations. Bob Bright, a principal, says the firm welcomed the rule change. Bright said the firm was not an NASD member because it did not deal with retail investors. When traders call, "we do an interview," he said. "We see if they're qualified," he said. "We insist they go through a training program." But a former customer of Bright Trading has told regulators that was not his experience. Even though he had no background in finance and had only five months' investing experience, Bright Trading considered him a professional. "Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves," Frucher said. "If the firms that are enticing people to come in and trade aren't going to do it, the exchanges are." Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (24571)	3/21/1999 5:37:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Jon: When I first signed up with AT&T Wireless around Feb. 1998 and from Feb. 1998 to about January 1999, the voice clarity was excellent. The only problem I had was a few dropped calls in Feb-March 1998 and that the system would be busy, on occasion. During this time period, I used the phone also in Tampa, Fl in AT&T's network and had no problems and the clarity was superb. Lately, from Jan 1999 to present, the voice clarity has not been as good. My guess is that AT&T has signed up too many people. I would disagree with you that every single call on a TDMA system has not been clear for the reasons above. dave

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (24571)	3/21/1999 6:15:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

When I first got my cdma service, I called home and got my messages off the message machine. The call was so clear that I was able to discern the correct name of one of the callers for the first time over my cell phone; I don't remember the name but when she gave it, her voice dropped a bit on the last syllable. I had listened to the message at my house several times--not two feet away from the message machine--and not picked up the last syllable previously. Only on my Qualcomm phone could I hear it! Cdma actually IMPROVED the voice quality over that coming out of the message machine's own speaker.

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (24571)	3/21/1999 6:43:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Jon, Build out has a lot to do with perception of voice quality. I can not comment on TDMA. I have seldom used it. I will say that I can not distinguish the difference in voice quality between CDMA using daily my old Bell Atlantic Qualcomm QCP-800, my even older retired Sprint APC Motorola GSM mobile with full size SIM before SIM Lock (purchased the first week that digital PCS was commercially available in the US - November 1996, well ahead of first commercial CDMA phone introduction), and my new Omnipoint Bosch GSM Worldphone which I use primarily for European travel. If you pointed a gun to my head I would say that the clearest and most natural voice signal is received on the GSM Bosch when I am in a strong Omnipoint cell, here in the US. Using this phone in France or Germany (which I can't do obviously with the QCP-800), talking to my home in DE, I would swear I am one mile up the street with a cell in the middle. - Eric -