x
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
TV Monitor 4/19/2016 | 2:53:08 PM
Re: Clueless winddkny

State financing has long been a part of big budget infrastructure projects for ages in many countries, ie nuclear power plants, high speed railways, highways, electrical grid, water supply network, etc.

China is the only one extending that state financing to wireless cellular network. But then again, one could argue that wireless cellular network is a critical infrastructure and is qualified for infrastructure developmental financing provided by Chinese state-owned banks.

It is up to Swedish, Finnish, and Korean governments to come up with competitive wireless cellular network infrastructure financing to compete with Huawei/ZTE, instead of complaining about it.
winddkny 4/18/2016 | 11:44:28 PM
Re: Clueless State backed financing indeed seems to make sense out of Huawei's rapid growth.

Just read a damning report presented as material to the US-China Economica and Security review commission.

http://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/6.14.12McCarthy.pdf

Then indeed, Huawei is a threat to the global order of telecom vendors and they have managed to disrupt the market through unfair means.

Not that carrierrs who benefit from this are complaining...
TV Monitor 4/18/2016 | 10:42:32 AM
Re: Ciscosson sowen557

Backend equipments, yes.

Handsets, no. Apple, Samsung and LG aren't going anywhere.
sowen557 4/18/2016 | 9:50:51 AM
Re: Ciscosson Money talks, plus getting State Funding never hurts.  Waiting until the operator's network is 100% Huawei from Handset through to Core, revenue's will sore (sic) and you will see what preditory pricing can really do.
mendyk 4/18/2016 | 8:45:27 AM
Re: Ciscosson The financing goes through the operators in the emerging markets. If the growth is fueled by the government for its own purposes and through other channels, then it's not anything that other vendors are "losing," since they never had a shot at it in the first place. For this reason, growth rates that are high above the norm should be viewed with some discretion.
TV Monitor 4/17/2016 | 4:30:04 PM
Re: Ciscosson mendyk

Well, that's not Huawei's problem since it is the Chinese state banks making the loans, not Huawei. Huawei is paid in full upfront.

Since Ericsson, Nokia, and Samsung do not have access to state backed financing, they have to compete at a disadvantage.
mendyk 4/17/2016 | 1:55:15 PM
Re: Ciscosson One issue with growth fueled by expansion into emerging markets is that there's a bigger risk of customer default -- a lesson that a few technology suppliers have already learned. It's easy to be impressed by high growth rates, but sometimes those rates are based on questionable underpinnings -- as we learned in the subprime fiasco a few years back.
TV Monitor 4/17/2016 | 12:48:13 PM
Re: Clueless winddkny

It is not possible to match Huawei's growth without a state-backed long term financing that Huawei equipment buyers in developing countries are getting. Commerical loans cannot match the terms of state loans.

Heck, even AT&T finds such financing attractive and is using it in its Mexico projects.
winddkny 4/16/2016 | 10:08:36 PM
Clueless It is rather interesting to note that western vendors are still clueless on how to beat or even match Huawei's growth. That Huawei is targeting 12% CAGR over Ericsson's 1-3% CAGR speaks volumes of Western vendors tacit acceptance of playing second fiddle to the Chinese vendor in the CSP market..
danielcawrey 4/16/2016 | 2:10:16 PM
Re: Ciscosson This just shows that even though Huawei is locked out of the U.S. market there are still lots of opportunities for growth. There's a need for infrastructure deploument all over the world, and this is espcially true in emerging economies. While Huawei must contend with a slowdown in China and a blockage in the U.S., it still seems to be able to find pretty compelling ways to grow.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE