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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10888)	4/8/2001 2:12:23 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Article Nr. 1 says it is not going to get built because the operators (or Service providers as in the article)have no money for it. The fact is: There is too much money!! Do you know that there was so much money around that every operator went around the world building networks? Look how much they own abroad. Do you know that Deutsche Telekom is heavily indebted and is at the same time fighting the US government to buy US GSM operator Voice Stream? Have a look at how many international operations Baby Bells own around the world. This because the telecoms liberalization of the last 10 years allowed them to invest abroad. Note that they didn't build new networks in the US (or Europe in the case of the European telcos). Try to find out you would be amazed. Now those operators have to come back and invest at home. See the case of KPN and Swisscom -which jointly own part of Cesky Telecom- trying to seel their stake to cut debt. Former Ameritech own part of Teledenmark. SBC owns part of South Africa Telecom. Bell South owns mobile networks in Brazil. Just a few examples. Back to 3G construction time frame. Of course selling stakes abroad to construct networks at home takes time. First you have to find buyers for what you have there. Just to illustrate Dutch KPN is trying to sell its stake in Cesky Telekom but is finding the going tough. to be continued...

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10888)	4/8/2001 2:22:56 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

No wonder you are confused. Look to Australia to see the noise on 3G: Telstra shelves 3G network roll-out plans until 2004 date: 04 April 2001, source by: IT Telstra said today it would not be cost efficient to roll out a third generation (3G) network until 2004. “Our view is the cut over point for cost efficiency will probably be 2004,” Telstra head of a mobile Dick Simpson told a Merrill Lynch conference in Sydney. He said there would not be any impact on Telstra's capital expenditure because of 3G for some time. But a few days back: Qualcomm to launch Australian 3G network date: 28 March 2001, source by: pmn.co.uk Qualcomm, the US telecommunications manufacturer, has announced that it will deploy a commercial 3G network in Australia. What is going on here? It is simple. Telstra is a died in the wool fixed line operator. (Fixed line operators are not exactly revolutionary types). They are extremely conservative. So they will invest only when they are 110% conveinced that it makes sense. So they are continuing investing in Asian telecoms rather than in Australia itself. Let QCOM be pioneer get the arrows and then we will build based on their experiences that's the Telstra tune.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10888)	4/8/2001 2:31:33 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

Mike, Let me pause a little and explain how I look to these issues. There are some factors we have to consider: If everything would be rosy on the 3G side of telecoms, imagine what would be happening right now to the fixed line side of the business! Operators would be dumping their investments in fixed. Freezing all investment in new stuff for fixed line business and this would hurt a lot of people. As you can see there is a vested interest in fixed line that wopuld like to show 3G under a bad perspective. Here is a typical example: "A key reason for the poor sentiment has been the growing belief that prospects for next generation networks have been vastly exaggerated. That is the view of Professor Peter Cochrane, until recently the head of technology at British Telecom. In an interview broadcast last night he said that some telecoms companies may collapse under the financial strain of trying to develop and run third generation mobile phones. Speaking on BBC's The Money Programme, Professor Cochrane said: "Make no mistake about it, this is a fairly serious game of poker. To make 3G pay, everybody's got to have one and be very avid users indeed. I don't see this happening." Most probably this gentleman is not to e going part of 3G build out. Perhaps he doesn't have the grasp. Or was booted out because he blocked the unbundling or a mixture of all that. Bu in the same article Chinese tycoon Li Ka Shing is put his money in 3G. 3gweekly.org I take very dispersed information and try to make sense out of them. Americans (my generalization perhaps) are at a disadvantage on that because they focus too much in the US. To get the overall picture you have to look to every single corner of the world. And then you have to read the news with a slant. I don't read the lines I read only in between them.

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (10888)	4/8/2001 2:45:16 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 12823

What happens inside a real company? It is full of human beings. And they act as such. Lets say that 3G is up and coming. How about 2g GSM? Actually there is a lot of people involved on that too. Would they just early retire or go look for another job? They don't do that they hang on to what they've done in the past ten years. This is why I think Lucent is in deep trouble. LU didn't phase out businesses that were going down. The guys who were selling stuff for fixed line didn't want to get their caps and move on. No. They continue selling the same stuff to CLECs propped by vendor financing. For the management of LU was very difficult to take the stars -who have been bringing home the bacon since they were ATT- and chopped their heads off. The company was very new and they didn't know much how things could be steered once they come to tough decisions. (CSCO is going to sufffer a lot exactly because of that! wait and you will see). Back to the point I was trying to make: Even within wireless vendors there will be some impedances to shift forom GSM to 3G. Right now GSM 2G is being sold like crazy in the developing world -note my PM to you a couple of days ago- the stars that are helping pay the salaries of the 3G people (who are not selling anything) will have to move over and make room for the 3G crowd. (It can be in ten years or 2 years but they will have to go away) It doesn't mean that 2G pelo have to be fired after 3G kicks in. It means that they will be removed from the driver's seat. It is different technology conducted by different people within the companies. They will have their R&D budgets cut. They will have to have smaller organizations. They will lose power. The 2G crowd will not give in that easy. This is all happening right now inside the vendor companies. (only that they are Finns, Germans and Swedish who are not very much now as being loquacious) When I read some news about this business I always have all that in the corner of my mind. Unfortunately this is not what people like to hear. You can't quantify it. You can't present it to analysts. But it is in there and affects this business.