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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (6817)	8/3/2000 1:36:44 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

I should say, I'm not here to defend or attack what the Europeans have done in choosing to go with GSM. But that is a reality that is irrevocable. In other words, it's not like a committee in Geneva is going to wake up tomorrow and say it's time to rip out the GSM networks and let's let IJ run the show. In contrast, we have seen that Korea's decision to subsidize handsets is quite revocable. That is to say, a substantial portion of QCOM's IS-95 revenue and earnings growth (not to mention margins) is dependent on the whims of some bureaucrats in Korea. To me, that means that the incremental benefits accruing to QCOM from a positive Korean subsidy decision are not high-quality earnings; i.e., they are "revocable". I should have clarified earlier, but this is a quality-of-earnings argument; not a moral argument. I don't really care about the morality of Korea's decision or Europe's decision. I only care how it affects the stock prices. Last I checked, that is all the markets care about either.

To: carranza2 who wrote (6817)	8/3/2000 2:49:10 PM
From: tero kuittinen	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 34857

Carranza - there is not one operator willing to spend on a IS-95 network in Europe. So accusing EU of "blocking" consumer access to IS-95 is baloney. Nobody is willing to build a network that is incompatible with current coverage in Europe, Eastern Europe, North Afica and Middle East. No company was willing to do so even in China, despite the political pressure on China Unicom. There are 2-4 GSM networks in all European countries; it would be insanity to introduce a single IS-95 network with no roaming possibility in any given country. Simultaneous installment of IS-95 networks in all countries would be financial suicide. MCI Worldcom had an opportunity to bid for licenses in England and Germany - just like Verizon did. They did not decide to buy a 3G license in Europe and install cdma2000. Nobody was stopping them - the only EU mandate is to have at least one W-CDMA network in every country. There is no directive against cdma2000. Since any US operator had the opportunity to introduce cmda2000 to Europe - and they all declined to do so - you can't claim that Europe is "shafting" CDMA. American operators like Worldcom killed the chance of cdma2000 in Europe by choosing not to buy a 3G license. European operators naturally went with W-CDMA to get the easiest upgrade from GSM-GPRS. You can't blame them for that, either. You are not saying just how should IS-95 or cdma2000 be supported when no company sees an opportunity in bringing them to Europe. Perhaps a government-subsidized, loss-making program would be what you really want? No public company can justify the costs to its shareholders. Tero