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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Biddle who wrote (31684)1/25/2003 5:11:35 AM
From: rkral  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197054
 
"For two years now, limited mobility or WLL-M has triggered a great deal of business acrimony in the telecom industry. The mobile operators have been complaining about the lack of a level playing field.

Their contention: When a call is made from a mobile phone to a WLL-M phone, the mobile subscriber pays rupees 1.20 ($1=rupees 48) for three minutes in addition to the airtime. Of this, rupees 1.14 is paid by the cellular operator to the basic or WLL-M operator.

In other words, the basic operator does not charge anything to its subscribers for incoming calls, but gets Rs 1.14 per call received from the mobile operator. But when a call is made from a WLL-M phone to a cell phone, the cellular operator gets nothing. The fixed-line subscriber is charged Rs 1.20 for a 3-minute call and the money is kept by the fixed-line operator.

!!!!!!!!!!!
That's an excerpt from the article .. and it's a lesson in obfuscation. <g>

Are there really five different operators involved here?
Of course not, there are four. The author says "rupees 1.14 is paid by the cellular operator to the basic or WLL-M operator".
Yes (s)he did, but does that mean "cellular operator to the basic operator, or cellular operator to the WLL-M operator" .. OR .. does it mean "cellular operator to the basic operator, also known as the mobile operator"? You've got to already know the answer, to know what the author means.
OK, OK, I see what you mean. But like I said, there are four operators.
Really? Aren't the cellular operators also known as the mobile operators?
Well, now that you mention that .. you know, I think you're right .. and I hate it when you're right. So OK, we only have three operators.
It would appear so. But, .. aren't the WLL-M operations part of the same company that has the fixed-line operations? $h1t, you're right again .. and that literally stinks. Does that mean there are only two operators? <gg>

Seriously, there are three different businesses (operations) here: the fixed-line, the cellular, and the WLL-M (limited-mobility). ("Cellular is more descriptive than "mobile", and "WLL-M" is much more descriptive than "basic". Additionally, "mobile" might be confused with "limited-mobility".)

The fixed-line business and WLL-M business should be considered as two separate companies, even though part of the same company. Interconnect charges made by the fixed-line "company" to it's sister company, the WLL-M "company", should be the same as the charges to the cellular operator. IMHO, that is the only way a level playing field will occur.

Mostly JMHO, and I might be interpreting the situation incorrectly.

Ron