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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brian h who wrote (52686)	7/24/2009 7:45:10 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	2 Recommendations Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 217942

The first issue was the old fact, idea, system that carriers like to have at least three (functional, reliable) vendors for their equipment, especially for the future. THey are anyway the ones who "bring in the monies", some cents for every minute used. Not necessarily every carrier by itself, but the carriers as a group. Some carrier can become totally dependent on only one vendor but will then (if it is financially capable of it) try to have at least two competing vendors (even if it means having two more or less separated netwrorks) The problem is obviously that infra manufacturers traditionally has used a lot of tricks to make it as difficult as possible to interface, enlarge, update their equipment to that of others. THis is actually how the Nokia infrastructure got started, by designing, making interface equipment between the then "big ones" (in europe Ericson, Siemens, Alcarel). In US the evolution has been slightly different as US started from a total monopoly, MaBell/ATT/Lucent. Motorola was the one which fought the fight against that monopoly using patents, etc,etc. (and the ideological, political will of antitrust). - The two hearings are the (sad) result of that evolution (plus FCC spectrum policies, etc), especially when (mutually standardized)GSM entered the global market. The US monopoly got forcefully split (to be able to compete globally) but then (now) USA got "balkanized" into the QCDMA-GSM (totally) non-compatible carriers. What is happening now is that "it took Apple and the iPhone" to make the US market "evolve" from present and earlier "balkanization process" which has been just increasing during the last ten years. THat is, most "energy" has been used to avoid competition, both in terms of networks and consumers (handsets). -- "From the very start" it has been clear that China will not agree in becoming a "telecom-colony" of either the "west" nor "japan", knowing how important (new)telecom is for China, more so than for others. That is why China always has demanded "deals" where their own industry is protected. The goal has always been to have a rough 50-50 split, foreign domestic. The TD-CDMA was approved for that very reason to make WCDMA, the FIRST GLOBAL standard possible. In the same way europe has agreed to a "split", to "support" Huaway networks "where they make commersial sense". That is: The present imbalance is that CHina has one, Europe has two "viable infra manufacturers" while "the Americas" has none (as a result of the balkanization for both networks and handsets). PS There is obviously many more funny things which has happened, are happening and will happen, especially in the standaridzation process of 4G-LTE, which includes carriers and manufactirers, even consumers (ITU) in a kind of proportional structure.