To the Editor:
Amidst an escalating industry-wide debate about competing wireless technologies, we want to ensure that the “GSM-CDMA Economic Study,” prepared by Andersen Consulting with two other consulting firms, is not misinterpreted. Consequently, we at Andersen Consulting want to clarify certain aspects of the study.
The study, sponsored by Qualcomm Inc., involved projections based on two specific operating scenarios and an economic model driven by a specific set of technical, geographic, quality and traffic assumptions. It is important to note that changing any of these assumptions could result in different conclusions. For example, in cases where an operator determines that CDMA (IS-95) macrocells and GSM macrocells both are technically feasible, then the economic model would project different financial results. The study was not intended to be a global analysis of the benefits of CDMA (IS-95) vs. GSM, and it should not be used to draw such conclusions.
In view of the rapid development of wireless technology, we at Andersen Consulting recommend that operators evaluating technology alternatives use an economic model driven by their specific operational considerations and the most current technology assumptions. Furthermore, we believe that any debate on future wireless standards is a much broader issue that requires thorough consideration of regulatory issues, technology trends, demographics and macro-economic factors.
John C. Morris
Andersen Consulting
Global Managing Partner
Wireless Industry Segment
