|
|
2007-10-23
, 17:59
|
|
Posts: 41 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#61
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 18:05
|
|
|
Posts: 2,041 |
Thanked: 1,066 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Houston
|
#62
|
I would love for that to be the case (since Canada is already bathed in the warm rays of wimax) but wouldn't that have shown up in the FCC report?
|
|
2007-10-23
, 18:09
|
|
Posts: 54 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jul 2007
|
#63
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 18:11
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#64
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 18:22
|
|
Posts: 45 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Aug 2007
|
#65
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 18:24
|
|
|
Posts: 2,041 |
Thanked: 1,066 times |
Joined on Mar 2006
@ Houston
|
#66
|
I can't imagine the FCC allowing a device to pass
certification without testing all the transmitters within the device at all frequencies, and
this would include WiMax... Nokia could keep quiet about the FM Radio because it's a
receiver. What would Nokia do if they decided to enable WiMax and failed FCC
certification - there would be shed loads of product sold which have WiMax capability
which can't be used, and the firmware would need to differentiate between "good"
devices and "bad" devices. Nah, can't see the Easter Egg being WiMax!
[/QUOTE]
|
|
2007-10-23
, 19:23
|
|
Posts: 129 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
|
#67
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 21:10
|
|
Posts: 39 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#68
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 21:11
|
|
Posts: 39 |
Thanked: 2 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#69
|
|
|
2007-10-23
, 21:15
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#70
|