ERICY and CDMA: Old dogs and new tricks.
Echoing Tim A.'s earlier response to you, perhaps the way to look at the answer to your question is the following: What does E have to gain by a continuing stonewall vs. CDMA; what does it have to lose?...in light of the following observations:
E's recent quarterly results have been poor, putting managment under tremendous pressure to turn operations around for the better.
E has lost market share to NOK, MOT.
With CDMA, arguably, the fastest growing wireless technology, why not hitch one's wagon to the CDMA horse to try to get, at least, top-line growth?
If W-CDMA is going to be longer to market than CDMA 2000 (notwithstanding all those optimistic sounding operator tests of a month ago by VOD with E), or if W-CDMA is indeed "vaporware", and with E's position of supplier of first (or second or...) resort for GSM operators in the bag, how does it hurt E to wave the CDMA banner? If CDMA 2000 is the 3G technology of choice, why not extol?
With the cheap price paid for the Q's infrastructure business, a little return on CDMA would yield large ROI and ROE for the investment, thereby making management look smart.
Agree that Clark's observation is applicable: under the banner of new (ne old) management, E can change its PR stripes.
FWIW. Best regards. Steve |
