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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/4/2000 8:56:00 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 13582

Ruff, << CDMA vs. CDMA >> Good clip. Thanks. Will we see standardized 3G in our lifetime? <g> - Eric -

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/4/2000 9:11:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ruff, << "The cdma2000 plea: We want CDMA overlay" >> That's the title of an article shown as "Related stories" at the bottom of your clip. Can you find "The cdma2000 plea: We want CDMA overlay" and post? - Eric -

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/4/2000 10:13:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 13582

deleted eom

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/4/2000 10:19:00 PM
From: r.edwards	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ruffian isn't that article from Jan 1999 ? ??...a year ago

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/5/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

"which means cdma2000 will have to take on half of Korea, most of the US, and all of Europe, Japan and China at the ITU Technical Group 8/1 table from now until March 1999, when the final evaluations are due. I read that whole long article and it's more than a year out of date?! It's pre-ERICY agreement! Everyone should date and attribute their articles!!!

To: Ruffian who wrote (6250)	2/6/2000 1:57:00 PM
From: Theophile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ruffian, the CDMA vs CDMA post was not identified as to the date of the article. After reading the informative article, the March 1999 deadline seemed to stand out noticeably. Can I assume we are looking at an article approximately one year old? And where did it derive? I appreciate your response, thanks. Martin Thomas PS: after reading further posts, it is apparent others have already noticed this error of posting material which ought to be archived, not up on the board. Your apology is appropriate, and you have rightfully offered it. Martin Thomas