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: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/1/2000 1:52:01 PM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Why is it hypocracy to limit a foreign Govt owned company from buying vital US assets?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/1/2000 1:56:18 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Let's say DT does buy Sprint, and let's assume PCS is part of the deal, ie, no fancy side deal wherein PCS is sold to Wcom is made. What effect on Qcom can we realistically expect? I guess my concern is that I would have been extremely confidant that Wcom would have coveted the PCS asset and pushed CDMA worldwide, but I hesitate to imagine at all that DT would have this type of vision. The years of near sightedness displayed so far by the GSM/TDMA crowd would lead me to conclude that they would simply build out the PCS asset here, and perhaps not aggressively, and certainly not spread the network far and wide. Does anyone have a more positive slant?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/1/2000 4:27:16 PM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

"It is the inconsistent US government who is getting a taste of its own medicine. After pounding Japan, Korea and China to open up their markets for foreign ownership, I am not sure if we have a leg to stand on if we deny foreign ownership." Greetings Ramsey - I suspect that "having a leg to stand on" in politics, as well as consistency, are meaningless criteria. And the setting of telecommunications standards appears 95% politics, as best as I can observe. If there are political levers to be used to crack the European door to Cdma (which I doubt), great. At the very least, I believe U.S. 3G decisions should remain untainted by Eurocentric interests resulting from ownership (however, the Verizon experience seems fine so far). I personally don't favor the 2 largest U.S. CDMA opreations being under foreign control. However distasteful, in the telcom arena, politics has proven king, and the Euros have full government participation in this game. The U.S. market is clearly the open playing field, providing the opposition a distinct advantage. However distasteful again, I believe it's time for the U.S. government to play a more active role in this game as well. And I suspect they will. regards, blg

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/1/2000 5:10:44 PM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 13582

I would suggest that members of Congress should be alerted of their hyprocracy, if they remotely set up any barriers to prohibit foreign ownership of Sprint. I am not opposed to foreign ownership of US companies. However, foreign companies that are primarily government owned monopolies (as DK is), that are using monopoly power to finance these purchases, may be another matter. In this instance I question why we (the US) should sit still to the Europeans closing out their market to US technology (CDMA) while allowing them to use monopoly generated profits to buy US telecomm assets.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/1/2000 9:55:53 PM
From: waverider	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey It is a bit different when a German government sponsored corporation tries to take over an American telecommunications company as opposed to an independent American company investing in a foreign company. h

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/2/2000 10:57:18 AM
From: Cooters	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey, <<I would suggest that members of Congress should be alerted of their hyprocracy>> I don't think there is enough thought put into the US gov to be deemed hypocrits. Idiots would be better. I noticed the Ameritech kiosk at the mall here in St. Louis was changed to Verizon yesterday. If I understand it correctly, the Ameritech properties in STL were acquired by SBC, sold to GTE due to SBC's existing presence, acquired by BAM, and renamed Verizon(soon to be or maybe already merged in with VOD/Airtouch). All in less than a year! Anyway, 2 nationwide CDMA carriers to choose from now. Cooters

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/2/2000 11:59:58 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 13582

Oh come on, Ramsey. Since when do countries do what is equal and fair for all countries. All countries, MOST notably countries like China and Japan, do what will benefit themselves first and then do what may APPEAR politically correct. It's about time the US stops letting other countries slap it around. I say if other countries are screwing us, let's do it back. Also, as an American interested in the US first, it gives me more than a little pause to think of foreign companies coming in here and buying up our assets, especially when US companies are willing to buy those assets, but the FCC blocks it because of antitrust concerns. If US companies are subject to FCC antitrust scrutiny, then foreign companies wanting to buy US companies should be subject to it as well. No quarter should be given other countries in the interest of political correctness.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/2/2000 8:11:30 PM
From: limtex	Respond to of 13582

RS $32bn squeezed out of operators of 3-G licenses by the British Government. OK but how is a 3-G business model going to look? I mean Broadband access is going to be universally available in Britain and the US this year and the speed will increase from say 500Kbps to over 2Mbps. ] 3-G is not like the existing mobile telephony beginnings. After all many people in the World today have mobile phone and use them for just that. Indeed I wonder how many people who today have mobile phone want anything very much more. No this isn't like who wants any more than 256 KB memory in a computer. Now how is this going to play out in England when the operators have paid up this massive amounts? Best regards, L

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (13444)	7/8/2000 4:31:36 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey - A slightly off topic response to your post on the regulated thread: First and foremost, no analysts or experts seem to bring up the biggest obstacle for wireless going forward - TAXATION. The outrageous cost for these spectrum is a pure form of taxation. In order to recover this tax, our wireless phone bill is probably higher taxed than what we would pay for gasoline or even sin tax such as cigarettes. This tax puts so much pressure on the carriers that one wrong move could mean do or die. Well, in the sense that any money that goes to the government is tax, then yes. But this is sophistry<g>. Unlike real taxes these auctions are actually capitalism in action - giving a limited asset to someone who believes they can make the best use of it. What the consumers are really paying for is the use of an asset whose supply is limited. Clark