SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: rudedog who wrote (170827)9/3/2002 11:10:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 176387
 
<<... I was way off in the hinterlands this summer, out of internet range. A very enjoyable change of pace for me and the family, and just as well given what has happened in the market... <G>...>>

Sometimes we all have to re-charge and get away from 'the real world'...=)

regards,

-Scott



To: rudedog who wrote (170827)9/4/2002 8:14:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 176387
 
Dell: It’s Time to Diversify, Dude

knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

Dell Computer, the no-fuss PC sales machine, has set the standard for a successful direct-distribution company. But Dell is now reworking its bare-bones formula in an attempt to branch out from the PC market into more sophisticated, and profitable, computer systems.



With $31.2 billion in revenues and 28% of the U.S. market share for PCs, Dell is devising a strategy to take on the likes of IBM and Sun Microsystems in the market for servers and other higher-margin business equipment. Dell is also planning to add hand-held devices and printers, long Hewlett-Packard’s profit driver, to its product line. And, for the first time, Dell has said it will begin to work with retail dealers.



Founded by Michael Dell, 37, in his University of Texas dorm room, the company is the master of direct-delivery in the computer industry, carrying only five to seven days of inventory at any time. Competitors have been catching up to Dell, but their cycles are still weeks behind, slowed by their dependency on retail outlets.



“So far, nobody has been able to match Dell,” says Gerard Cachon, professor of operations and information management at Wharton. With computer prices declining, Cachon adds, Dell’s quick turnaround gives it an added advantage over competitors.



Dell, headquartered in Round Rock, Tx., reported second-quarter revenues of $8.46 billion and earnings of $501 million. Revenues were up 11% over the same quarter a year ago. These figures, however, can’t disguise the PC market’s generally unhealthy outlook. “The basic problem is the desktop PC business is strategically a terrible business,” says David Croson, professor of operations and information management.



While the industry showed signs of revival in the first quarter of 2002, it lost ground again in the second quarter. Worldwide PC shipments in the second quarter of 2002 declined 0.6% from the same period last year, according to preliminary results from Dataquest Inc., a unit of Gartner, Inc. In the U.S., PC shipments reached 10.6 million units, a 0.8% decline from the previous year.



"The market undoubtedly saw the effects of inventory overhang from the first quarter, but at the same time we have yet to see any significant return to corporate buying, and in the consumer market buying appears to have fallen back further in some regions," notes Charles Smulders, vice president of Gartner Dataquest’s Computing Platforms Worldwide group.



The second quarter, for the first time, also laid out a new competitive landscape for Dell, following the merger of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq. Hewlett-Packard moved into first place in the worldwide rankings, but just 0.6 percentage points higher than Dell. However, the merged companies’ combined shipments were down 16.1% from a year ago while Dell grew 13%. In the U.S. Hewlett-Packard has an 18% share of the PC market.



“The problem with PCs is that they are a commodity. You can’t make money selling computers for, what is it now, $599?” says Morris Cohen, professor of operations and information management and co-director of the Fishman-Davidson Center for Service and Operations Management. “There hasn’t been a killer app in a few years so if you stick to PCs you’re selling a commodity with a shrinking price and a shrinking margin. Unless there’s some technological push, it’s like selling refrigerators.”



To cope, Cohen adds, Dell is looking to diversify its products and move into more profitable areas, including servers, communication switches and other sophisticated business systems. “They have definitely set a standard for what you call the direct model. Now they are looking at their next generation of systems development and trying to extend and enhance their model throughout the full value-chain and supply-chain network.”



But Dell is not operating in a vacuum. It faces a combined Hewlett-Packard with its own clout in the PC market and with suppliers. “To some extent that’s why Dell wants to do things like printers because they don’t have that and HP-Compaq does,” says Cohen. “Dell is up against a more diversified competitor that has some very profitable lines of business that they don’t have. One approach would be to match them.”



Dell has already experienced some success in higher-end businesses including servers, but that market demands sophisticated customer service. According to Cohen, “Dell is trying to introduce a certain degree of differentiation in the quality of service they provide to their customers right now. They already offer a completely differentiated product because it is made to order. The next challenge is to allow the customer to also specify the speed in terms of the channel of distribution and different types of delivery options … on a per order basis. That’s the kind of challenge they’re working on now.”



Furthermore, while Dell has enjoyed a strong reputation for consumer service, that reputation has recently taken a hit. “When they saw the market in 2000 starting to soften, they were fast to cut back on labor,” says Cachon. “They do a lot of outsourcing of customer service and some of the service hasn’t really been as good as it should have been. But I doubt that’s going to be something they can’t fix over time.”



Despite its low-margin strategy, Dell has invested in brand development, with television ads featuring its impish Dell Dude proclaiming: “You’re getting a Dell.” But Croson says that may have its limits. “The only way to differentiate from the competition is branding, but constant advertising is expensive and requires cash outflow,” he notes. “Consumers are more sophisticated about the fact that they are buying ‘Intel Inside’ and not Dell outside.”



Finally, Dell is even moving away from its signature direct-distribution model. In August the company announced it would, for the first time, work with computer dealers to sell so-called White Box systems (unbranded individually customized PCs sold in retail stores). This market makes up more than 30% of the nation’s PC sales. Dell has said it is looking for modest revenues of $380 million from this line of business in the first year.



While Dell will sacrifice some of its margins to middlemen dealers, the strategy is not likely to cannibalize its direct, Internet-based business, suggests Cachon. And while Dell may be entrenched in a slow-growing commodity business, it has profited as a financial company, Croson adds. “One thing people don’t know about Dell is that its PC business has really not been all that profitable in the late 1990s. Dell made a lot of money with purely financial transactions, selling put options based on the public perception that its stock was going to go up. They have earned hundreds of millions of dollars through financial transactions which had nothing to do with PCs.” Cohen points to another of Dell’s financial strategies: Because the company doesn’t need to pay its suppliers for 30 days, its tight inventory allows it to hold cash longer than its competitors.



But company earnings are dependent on share-price growth, adds Croson. “It’s like any derivative transaction. As soon as one little thing goes wrong, the problems pile on each other.”



According to him, Dell’s recent strategy announcements signal that the company is grasping for new direction. “I think they are searching for a more profitable strategy. This symptom of floundering around when one strategy isn’t working is a common sign of trouble. They are in a situation now where if they want to grow they have to do something new.”



The choices, he says, are difficult. Sticking with the low-end PC business dooms Dell to tight margins forever. But moving more into high-end products, such as servers, puts Dell in a market glutted with competitors struggling with overcapacity following the Internet bust. “The high-end market is promising but temporarily awful. The low-end is permanently awful. You don’t get a lot of benefit by avoiding the blood bath in the high-end, then going into the scorched earth of the low-end.”



Croson suggests that the company pull back, focus on maintaining customer loyalty and “figure out what the business would look like if it turned into a cash cow rather than floundering around looking for high growth. That might be unacceptable to management [because] it looks like giving up, but you can do a lot worse than that.”



Meanwhile, in the leadership area, Michael Dell, who owns 12% of the stock, remains very much involved in the company’s future. “The rule is that you get rid of the founder fairly soon in the course of a company’s development,” says Cohen. “It’s very rare to see a founder remain in an important role. He or she usually has the major idea and can’t execute. You’ve got to give Michael Dell credit; he’s beaten the odds.”



Cohen suggests that Dell’s newest ideas may create a dangerous lack of focus. “There’s always that risk, but they also have a strategic risk in just staying still. They can afford to try this.”



Dell’s main worry is the unknown, Cachon adds. “The biggest risk to Dell is that the whole concept of a PC could change. What happens if people buy boxes that hook up to their TVs, or there is some radical technological shift. That’s probably their greatest risk over the next five to 10 years.”



To: rudedog who wrote (170827)9/23/2002 5:53:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 176387
 
Talking research with Microsoft's Rick Rashid

Q & A

By Chris Gaither
Boston Globe Staff
9/23/2002

Rick Rashid, 51, serves as Microsoft Corp.'s senior vice president for research. Reporting directly to Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, Rashid oversees five research labs scattered across three continents. His 700 employees range from psychologists studying computer usage to software programmers working on new features for future versions of Windows to physicists exploring the depths of theoretical computer science. He spoke in Microsoft's San Francisco office last week with Globe Staff writer Chris Gaither.

Q. One of the things that Microsoft's critics like to say is that Microsoft is very good at taking other people's ideas and making money off them. Is it your job to prove them wrong?

A. Well, we're pretty good at taking our own ideas and making money off them, too. If you look at a lot of the technologies that are the heart of Microsoft today, a lot of those things came out of Microsoft research.

Q. Can you give me an example of a product that began in the research labs and made its way into a full-fledged Microsoft product?

A. There are a variety of different examples I could draw on. If you look, for example, at what is now the digital media division that produces the [Windows] Media Player, that was a group that I started in 1993. We spun them out into a product organization in 1996 and they started delivering products after that. Microsoft was not in that area before. We didn't have a media player, we didn't have any of the technology there. It started in the research group. Even today, many of the individual pieces of technology that become part of that product come from that group.

Q. How pragmatic is your job? Are you allowed to go on pie-in-the-sky kinds of projects?

A. The way we judge what we do is: Are we moving forward the state of the art in the areas in which we do research? We judge ourselves first and foremost on our publication in peer-reviewed literature. Honestly, we run ourselves much more like a university computer science department than, I think, people's normal ideas of an industrial research lab. We do work closely with the product teams, but you can't have the kind of impact from a basic research group that you want to have unless you are able to be at the forefront in the fields that you work in.

Q. Are there particular projects that you're throwing more resources toward?

A. We're putting a lot of energy into user-interface technologies and improving the user's experience. We have a lot of people working in areas like natural language and speech - natural input, if you want to think of it that way. We have people working on new kinds of devices for user interfaces, things like very large displays that would allow you to have huge amounts of information not just directly in front of you but in your peripheral vision on both sides. Surround you with information. We're looking at the social dynamics of human interaction, and how can we improve the use of computers as a tool for people to communicate with each other. How can we improve, for example, distance education or online meetings and really create an environment where people trust each other better than they do today?

Q. Is it difficult to decide what is a Microsoft problem to tackle?

A. No. Our research is in computer science, and what I've found is that almost anything we do in our research group can find some applicability in our products. Microsoft has a very broad range of products. ... There's very little that you would do in a computer science research setting that you couldn't leverage through some product group at Microsoft. Even some of our very theoretical work, I've found, makes it into our products. We have a group that does very long-range work in theoretical computer science, statistical physics, discrete mathematics. It's a great group. They've got a Fields Medallist and a Wolf Prize winner. One of their researchers just won the Godel Prize. And yet some of that work has actually influenced things like the algorithms that are actually used in our Windows products.

Q. You've mentioned quite a few award winners. Is it hard to persuade that caliber of scientist to work for a company as large as Microsoft? Are they afraid that they're going to get buried in a corporate bureaucracy?

A. It's actually almost the opposite. When I first started Microsoft research in 1991, it was really hard to convince people to come. ... The reality is that Microsoft then was a very small company. People worried that the longevity of the company would not allow them to do their long-range research. So they looked at software companies and said, `Gosh, software companies don't seem to last a long time. How do we know that Microsoft is going to be here five years from now?' In fact, there was a good friend of mine from a university who I was trying to convince to come. We actually entered into a bet: He believed that Digital Equipment Corp. was still going to be here 10 years later, but that Microsoft wouldn't. ... I have this check on my wall that says, `To Rick, 25 cents,' and it has a little memo, `Rick was right.' ... Once we got a good team in place, and as the trajectory of the company showed to people that it was going to be around to do basic research, it became easier. In fact, the more good people you have, the more great people you have. The more great people you have, the more great people you can hire. It's a little bit like gravity: People bring other people in.

Q. Has Sept. 11 changed your focus at all?

A. Certainly, the whole issue of Trustworthy Computing [Microsoft's computer security initiative] and security are more important now than they were a year ago, not just because of Sept. 11 but because of the greater amount of hacking activity on the Internet. ... But basic research is best when it's not directed from above, or directed from specific events. Yes, maybe ideas can come from something, and when they do that's great. But ultimately your goal is, [if] you're the expert in the field: How can I make things better? How can I solve problems that weren't solved before?

This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 9/23/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.

boston.com



To: rudedog who wrote (170827)10/7/2002 9:11:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 176387
 
Dell decides to go upscale: Low-cost computer giant turns sights to servers, storage devices

By Crayton Harrison
The Dallas Morning News
Monday, October 07, 2002

AUSTIN, Texas — Dell Computer, often called the Wal-Mart of the PC industry for its speed, efficiency and low prices, wants to go a little more upscale.

Dell, which met with Wall Street analysts in Austin last week, still wants its products to appeal to a wide variety of customers by offering low prices.

But in the past year, Dell has started offering more complex, upscale products, such as more powerful servers and storage devices.

It's a strategy that has worked at Wal-Mart; if you're already buying toilet paper there, why not buy a desk or a television? There are signs Dell is also making the right moves, though it has much to prove.

"They're moving out of the low end all the way to the data center," said Charles Wolf, an analyst at Needham & Co.

"That's the thing that's frightening competitors."

Last week, the company said it was raising its third-quarter revenue guidance to about $9.1 billion, from the original forecast of $8.9 billion.

If Dell hits that new forecast, it will be a 22 percent increase from last year's third-quarter revenue. And much of the growth is coming from Dell's products for businesses, such as servers and storage devices, said Chief Financial Officer Jim Schneider.

"Everything right now is kind of playing in our favor," he said.

Dell, based in Round Rock, Texas, is now the No. 2 global seller of Intel-based server computers, the backbone of many corporate technology systems, according to International Data. The company's partnership with storage-device maker EMC has produced huge revenue growth for both, about 65 percent in this year's second quarter from the quarter before.

And Dell is attacking the mainframe computer market that Hewlett-Packard and IBM have dominated for years, saying it can put together clusters of servers that perform as well as most mainframes.

It will take a few more quarters to gauge how well Dell, relatively new in those markets, does.

But Dell is using a familiar strategy — get into the market just when the technology is becoming cheaper and use efficient manufacturing to undercut competitors. That's why many analysts left last week's meeting convinced Dell has the right idea.

"There's still a question of how far Dell can take itself to the high end," said Nick Nilarp, an analyst with credit-rating agency Fitch. "But Dell can take market share and profit within many of these segments, just as they've proven in the PC sector."

It may not work for everything. Analysts are optimistic about Dell's prospects in the midrange server business, but not all believe it can persuade customers to choose its server clusters over the big mainframes, especially if clients want more variety than it can offer.

Its foray into technology services, such as installing and maintaining a network-storage system for a client, also has critics.

Dell says it will offer only services that are easily applicable to many clients and avoid the time and expense of custom services for one client. Many analysts agree that's its best route, but some think clients would rather pay for a custom service.

The company didn't disclose anything more about its new partnership with printer maker Lexmark International or about its expected entry into the handheld computer business.

But the message was clear: Dell intends to grab a piece in almost every category of technology spending.

"We're not trying to reinvent things," Chief Executive Michael Dell said. "Customers welcome Dell into a market because they know we will increase the value and drive costs down."



To: rudedog who wrote (170827)10/16/2002 12:01:32 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 176387
 
Questions Of Sun's Viability, Relevance Getting Louder As Losses, Layoffs Loom



BY MURRAY COLEMAN
Investor's Business Daily
Wednesday October 16, 10:48 am ET

Sun Microsystems <sunw.O> used to call itself "the dot in dot-com."

Now, says Chief Executive Scott McNealy, just call it the "o" in old economy.

Sun has lost money in three of the last four quarters. Those losses are expected to continue when it reports first-quarter results Thursday. Wall Street is estimating Sun will wind up losing 4 cents a share.

More ominous, McNealy feels compelled to address concerns over Sun's long-term viability.

On Tuesday, Merrill Lynch said in a research note Sun may cut up to 8,000 jobs this quarter. That would be about 20% of its work force. At a Gartner Inc. conference last week, McNealy said that if the firm isn't profitable, he may make cuts.

Analyst Steven Milunovich added, the "sense of urgency probably has been heightened by customer questions about Sun's viability."

But pointing to Sun's cash balance of $6 billion and its $10 billion in annual sales, Milunovich wrote, "We believe the real question is not viability but relevance."

Still, at a technology conference in Florida, McNealy was forced to reinforce his claim that Sun remains a viable tech player.

Sun has been hit especially hard, says Charles King, a Sageza Group analyst. "Everyone in tech has taken their lumps lately," he said "But that's been especially true for Sun. It's almost shocking how far they've fallen."

The 95% Drop

In the summer of 2000, shares of Sun soared past 64. Now, they're trading around 3. That's 95% off the high. That means a dollar invested then is worth 5 cents today.

The stock price of other big tech firms, such as Cisco and Intel, also got hit during the spending downturn. But neither has slipped below 3, as Sun has in recent weeks. When companies sink to the low single digits, they risk being bumped from Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Of course, the committee that makes such decisions about the S&P index isn't talking. But, said Mark Specker, a SoundView Technology analyst, "Standard & Poor's looks at more than just how far someone's market cap has fallen. It would be hard to imagine a broadly based S&P 500 without Sun in its future to help represent tech."

And Rick Ferri, an investment manager at Portfolio Solutions LLC, points out Lucent Technologies, trading at less than 1, is still included in the index. Portfolio Solutions, based in Troy, Mich., manages a $130 million portfolio that includes funds with Sun shares. "The S&P doesn't have automatic cut-off signals like many other indexes," said Ferri. "It has an investment committee to interject a human element into the formula."

Certainly, part of Sun's problem can be traced to its customers' troubles. For instance, Lucent, one of Sun's big clients in the dot-com boom, has lost money for the last seven quarters and has gone through massive layoffs.

Analysts point out that Sun isn't the only firm whose customers aren't buying much these days. "Sun's woes aren't unique," said Jim Garden, a Technology Business Research analyst. "But they did sell a lot of equipment to Lucent and the other telcos during the tech boom."

How dour is Sun's position? "They certainly have some severe short- and midterm problems," said SoundView's Specker. But he says with nearly $6 billion in cash and little debt, "they're in no real danger of going out of business."

So how did it get into such a mess?

Some critics say McNealy is running a bloated company. Other analysts blame strategic mistakes.

"They were caught trying to do too many things without a cohesive strategy," said Mary Cicalese, an analyst at MirrorPoint Research Group. "The factors that helped Sun climb to the top worked against them once the downturn came."

With its earnings call close, Sun declined to comment about strategic and financial issues.

McNealy's led an aggressive campaign to revamp Sun's products, adding lower- and mid-range servers to the firm's line of higher-priced gear.

Sun's Solution

Sun's also taking aim at Microsoft by moving into different types of business software. And McNealy's making other strategic changes. For one, he's opening his arms to non-Sun designed chips. Another big move is to embrace Linux, a freely distributed operating system made by independent programmers. It competes against Sun's own Solaris operating system.

As a result, McNealy argues that Sun has a more diversified lineup than ever.

Still, Sun's strengths are generally considered to remain on the high end. "They're executing fine," said Dan Niles, a Lehman Bros. analyst. "It's just where they're positioned. It's a different market these days."

Microsoft and Intel are diversifying. Dell Computer Corp. is also expanding into more areas. "It's like walking into a car dealer where Sun represents a Ferrari and Dell's the Toyota," said Niles. "Both are good products. But which one do you think most people are going to buy in this kind of a market?"

Moving Too Slow?

Since Sun's shares began tumbling in late 2000, McNealy's been criticized for not downsizing enough. But those who've watched Sun's rise and fall say McNealy has his reasons for keeping the excess capacity. "Sun's management has seen how quickly the market can change," said Garden. "They want to come out of this downturn with more weapons than anyone else."

But even if Sun attracts a wider audience for its products, will it know what to do next?

"They need to decide what they want to be," said Current Analysis' Joseph Marino. "Instead of worrying about fighting Microsoft all of the time, they need to look at someone like IBM that has a full range of hardware, software and services."

Despite its poor stock performance, many analysts still rate Sun within the top tier among tech firms selling hardware and software business systems to corporate America. But that might turn out to be little comfort to beleaguered investors.

IBM and HP are clearly the market leaders, says Garden. He remains optimistic about Sun's future and still ranks it No. 3 among diversified business systems makers.

"Sun's problem in this market is that the advantage of being third is diminishing," he said. "On big projects these days, IT managers look at a primary source to buy from and a backup. Beyond that, it doesn't matter anymore."



To: rudedog who wrote (170827)10/21/2002 3:23:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 176387
 
Investor's Business Daily on the tech downturn...

Could Tech Slump Be Near The End?
By Brian Deagon
Investor's Business Daily
Monday October 21, 10:50 am ET

The tech industry's downturn may be nearing an end.

Quarterly sales and earnings reported by large technology firms in the past week suggest as much.

The bad news, though, is there's nothing in site to suggest the industry will ever return to a time - peaking in '99 - when billions of dollars were tossed about like candy and the nightly news routinely talked of soaring IPOs.

The odds of a recovery in technology between now and June have improved. That's partly why the stock market has been on a rally for more than a week. But analysts warn that unwanted surprises may lurk around the corner.

"We're still likely to see some massive restructuring announcements and perhaps major players exiting certain business," said Pip Coburn, global technology strategist at UBS Warburg.

Comments from big tech companies in the past week presented a mixed bag.

IBM Corp. fueled the tech rally last week when it beat third-quarter views and reaffirmed fourth-quarter guidance. That was preceded by an upgrade of IBM by brokerage Lehman Bros., the first time in two years it gave a computer company its No. 1 buy rating.

But the tech news was not upbeat all around. Intel Corp. missed third-quarter views and said the fourth quarter didn't look good. "The economy is still not recovering in our industry," Intel complained.

Finally, Earnings Growth

Microsoft Corp. beat expectations but said its current momentum may not be sustainable. "The global economic outlook continues to be uncertain," it said.

EMC Corp. succinctly described the conditions in its business, data storage, as "brutal."

Motorola Corp. showed a profit, but scaled back sales and earnings guidance for the fourth quarter and 2003.

Overall, though, a slight sense of optimism has poked through the surface.

Tech earnings, on average, are up 14% in the third quarter from last year, says First Call Financial. It's the first time in six quarters that an average of tech company earnings from the S&P 500 index has shown growth. And First Call projects a 24% growth in earnings in the fourth quarter.

Earnings growth had been shrinking since the beginning of 2001. Earnings were flat last quarter and turned positive since then, according to First Call.

Tempered Optimism

In terms of sales, they are expected to fall, on average, about 2% in the third quarter from a year ago. But it's the third quarter in a row that the decline in sales has slowed. The worst quarter was last year's fourth, when sales were off 20% from the year before.

"The tech recovery is coming at a glacial pace. It's sure not the V-shaped rebound that many expected," said Chuck Hill, director of research at First Call Financial.

Hill said many pundits had set their expectations far too high. Analysts have slowly tempered their optimism, especially now that most tech firms say they can barely see beyond the latest quarter.

"This is not your business-as-usual recovery," said Hill. "Our crystal ball is fuzzier than it normally would be."

Business spending, after falling off a cliff in 2001, is beginning to grow again, albeit slightly.

It used to be that tech budgets grew on average about 11% a year. Current surveys suggest that over the next year, business spending on tech might grow no more than 5%.

Overall, the good news may be that the bad news is not as bad as many secretly believed. As a result, investors have crept back into tech stocks for now.

Price Wars

"Investors have been so bearish on tech that even just a little bit of good news makes them want to jump back in," said Coburn.

By and large, though, industry watchers think tech firms have a lot more work to do.

"I still have a skeptical view toward tech," said Andrew Hodge, group managing director at DRI-WEFA, a unit of Global Insight Inc. He points out that many tech firms sell goods so cheaply that it's hard to make a profit.

"Competition and price wars have always been a problem for this industry," he said.

Hodge does foresee a recovery in the computer sector next year, but not in telecom, which is the second largest buyer of technology.

"Telecom looks like death," he said. "They made this huge overinvestment in infrastructure and now they are having a price war in voice, including wireless."

biz.yahoo.com