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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (8002)	8/30/2001 1:22:56 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<what was wrong with the 3G auction is that carriers vastly overpaid for spectrum. the head of DT called it "economic suicide". > That wasn't the process... as Coby alluded to the people your doing business with. Those guys simply either used way to rosy a scenario or committed suicide like you said.... like other merger mania's [oil] before it. That's not the process' fault. DDAK

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (8002)	8/30/2001 6:06:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<, i don't think anybody (including the govts) will benefit due to delayed rollouts and bankruptcies. > Nokia will benefit from huge GSM market share and continued huge GSM profits. They will be an also-ran in the CDMA market [judging by performance so far] so they need GSM to last and last and last. While paddling like hell underneath to get CDMA ready for the inevitable. Service providers who didn't bid but enjoy overpriced GSM profits will benefit. GSM handset makers [apart from Nokia] benefit [because when they have to compete in the highly competitive lower margin CDMA free market world they will find profits more difficult to obtain]. As discussed in regard to the financial collapse economics part of this thread, new, productivity-enhancing technologies mean vast improvements for consumers but less total profit to producers with most profit going to the inventors and market leaders. The world is getting richer from all the technological developments, but oddly, it doesn't necessarily show up in bottom lines. It shows up at the end-users' lifestyle improvement. Which, also oddly, doesn't actually seem to make people happier, though of course we all want these things. As far as I can tell, humans around me were as happy in 1950 as Y2K [though they died younger, worked hugely harder to achieve the same thing, couldn't buy much of anything, had worse health and it couldn't be treated]. It's all very odd, but we go flat out to do more of it anyway! Barefoot villagers in Fiji seem as happy as the cyberspace generation here. Maybe happier. Morose is not a word which fits with village life very well, but that is endemic in the pixel people. Mqurice