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: JohnG who wrote (10255)	4/2/2001 9:15:46 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 34857

Hold to your chair, John! "The funds (money moblie bid on spectrum) should be channeled towards the fixed sector." Yes, that's is what this guy thinks is a good idea!! As my father used to say: "There is a crazy guy born every five minutes" totaltele.com Bottom Line - 3G is the $100 billion dollar question Maev Sullivan 19 March 2001 The fallout from the exhorbitant prices paid for mobile licenses is reverberating through the industry, from CEO to shareholder. Since I last wrote in this column, in January, things have rapidly gone from bad to worse in the telecommunications and technology sectors. The "new" Orange flotation was an unmitigated disaster, which has made it close to impossible for the other mobile companies to launch their own initial public offerings (IPOs). The queue is very long and it could include BT Wireless, KPN Wireless, T-Mobile, NTT DoCoMO, Telefonica Moviles, Virgin Mobile, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless. Telecoms and technology share prices continue to nose dive and market rumors are multiplying faster than rabbits. Only last week Bernie Ebbers had to deny that he would be willing to sell WorldCom for $35 per share. Viatel is reported to be looking for a strategic partner - or would that be a purchaser with deep pockets? People are beginning to wonder if there is a risk that former incumbents such as BT, Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom might go bust. Manufacturers are falling over each other to issue profit warnings. When the telecoms sector is blooming, the manufacturers are radiant, but they have more to lose when the sector crashes, as many of the operators turn to the manufacturers for vendor finance and reduced prices - and other operators simply disappear. People continue to blame the greedy mobile operators whose eyes were larger than their stomachs when they bid in the third generation (3G) auctions. While the United Kingdom fiasco might be excusable on the grounds of inexperience, this does not justify practically the same mob repeating their mistakes and ending up paying over $100 billion for 3G spectrum. The $100 billion dollar question remains: are 3G frequencies worth it? According to Nick Jones, the research director of Gartner Group Europe, the operators have paid $5,000 for each 3G handset they are likely to sell - and that's before they start paying for network builds. Paradoxically, the mobiles, particularly the quasi-incumbents such as Vodafone, Orange, Telefonica Moviles and T-Mobile, are better cushioned to survive a financial famine than the fixed operators. The shortage of finance means that investment in broadband has all but dried up because the banks are reluctant to fund companies without profits. But there are still some fixed players worth backing. The banks need to work harder to find them. Can disaster be averted? Somehow the money removed from circulation by the 3G auctions needs to be pumped back into the telecoms sector, but without provoking the banking regulators to issue further "over-exposure" warnings. The funds should be channeled towards the fixed sector. Otherwise, it could be argued that the mobiles cannot even be trusted with pocket money. The first hurdle is getting various national ministries of economics and treasuries to part with their windfall gains. The mobiles should use the returned funds to pay down their debts - not for shopping sprees. The simplest solution would be to treat the auctions as a bad dream and to re-allocate the frequencies on a different basis. I doubt that new entrants would queue up for them again now that 3G has been so discredited and - let's face it - there is scant chance that a brand new 3G operator would be able to compete with the bigger mobiles. And who would fund them anyway? Even some of the quasi-incumbent mobiles might sit it out this time. Can anyone find the solution without resorting to Stalinist economics? Answers on an electronic postcard, please. Maev Sullivan is an independent telecoms consultant in London.

To: JohnG who wrote (10255)	4/3/2001 3:04:53 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 34857

John, the US government is plotting to kill 3G in the US. Shortage of spectrum is a plot by the ILECs to delay or kill 3G in the US. So that in ten years time people would still say that they stick to dial up as the previous messages put it in the last couple of days. After gorging in CLECs and killing ADSL, ILECs are hard at work in killing 3G. ILECs live to kill and kill to live. We have to admit they have a lot of power to make the government work for them. On Shortage of Radio Spectrum By MARK WIGFIELD Dow Jones Newswires WASHINGTON -- A trio of federal agencies has raised a caution flag in the wireless industry's race for more space in the nation's crowded airwaves. Under a review ordered last year by the Clinton administration, the Commerce Department, Pentagon and Federal Communications Commission said in reports released last week that there isn't enough room on the radio spectrum to readily accommodate companies seeking to develop new mobile wireless Internet services. Asked to detail prospects for giving up some government-allotted spectrum, the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Pentagon could only clearly identify about 45 megahertz out of 140 MHz studied. Officials also said it would cost $2.1 billion in engineering and other changes for Washington to clear that spectrum for commercial use -- an expense that under law would have to be picked up by the industry. Meanwhile, the FCC, examining 190 MHz now utilized by schools and fixed wireless Internet providers, said mobile Internet would disrupt those uses. But Commerce Secretary Donald Evans immediately downplayed the results, saying he would work "at the highest levels" to find a compromise between private and public interests. The Clinton administration launched the quest to move aside traditional government and industry uses of the radio spectrum to make way for so-called third-generation wireless services. Mr. Clinton warned that Japan and Europe were outpacing the U.S. in mobile Internet technology, and he set an aggressive schedule to auction new spectrum by July 2002. Mr. Evans signaled his strong interest in finding a solution to the spectrum impasse at a Thursday meeting with wireless-industry leaders. But at a briefing Friday to release the Pentagon's findings, a Defense Department official told reporters that the wireless sector has yet to prove that it really needs more spectrum. That challenge could exploit rifts in the wireless industry. Sprint Corp. PCS Group, for example, says it can provide most third-generation services without new spectrum, a position backed by wireless-handset maker Qualcomm Inc. But Verizon Wireless, a joint venture of Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC, has aggressively sought new spectrum. Verizon last week asked the FCC to stop granting schools new spectrum licenses until the third-generation issue is resolved. The petition is certain to be opposed by companies such as WorldCom Inc. and Sprint Corp., which lease spectrum from schools to supplement their own.