>So here's what I really don't get - that 3G is justified in terms of
> >needing extra bandwidth for more calls, despite the fact that mobile
> >penetration is nearer saturation in Europe than in Japan? That's true
> >if and only if 3G cannibalizes landline operations, though, right? Is
> >this good or bad for incumbents saddled heavily with landline
> >operations? (Bad, I suspect, at least to the extent that the landline
> >infrastructure hasn't been fully paid for yet. If so, are they being
> >compensated in any way?)
In order: yes, yes, very bad, and no. Were the movie studios 'compensated'
by TV networks? Did Ford compensate buggy-makers?
'Investment per customer' is impossible to extrapolate from -things like
marketing and handset subsidy vary from business model to business model,
not from technology to technology. Given the way DoCoMo chisels its
customers...
Again, the existing operators are far better situated than the new entrants.
For the leading operators, a lot of 3G spend is really substitutional -
they're filling in capacity in their networks, which they would be doing
anyway.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu May 24 18:00:08 2001