Talk:Telecoms crash

message: The first paragraph in this article makes no sense to me, it doesn't say what the crash was at all, it simply compares the boom to that of the dot-com boom which it, at best, grossly oversimplifies.
Mahewa (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article on "Telecoms crash" is hugely biased, and has no idea neither about auction theory nor the nature of innovation and risks.
 
 thats possibly being very unfair to who ever wrote it. these were auctions for the continued
 existance and trading of the telcos involved and more bidders were in the game than licences
 offered. diabetics bidding for insulin is a fair analogy !
First of all, ex-post it is true that telcos lost a huge money on the bids, but this does not mean that ex-ante the process was badly designed. 
 They were badly designed. Look at the refs in the article. An industry watchdog of the 
 type that does not exist in europe, PULLED similar auctions the year before in the USA
 because they could see the damage they would cause by loading the telcos with debt.
 READ THE BLOODY REFS. OR go and police wiki on some simpler pages Robin48gx (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very biased! 

message: This article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. It reads like it was written by a shareholder in a telecoms company! Just look at the entirely unreferenced "Massive Job Losses" section with its dubious and unreferenced claims that "within a year 100,000 jobs were lost in telecoms support and development across Europe" and "losses due to the fall in income tax and corporation tax quickly swallowed up any windfall gains". These are big claims and cannot remain in the article unless they are properly referenced - with inline references. They can't just be supported by an unspecified source buried in the reference list. Claims like these should be attributed to someone, and balanced by discussion of alternative views. I have added the POV-Check template to the article as a result of these problems, and those identified by 82.224.13.200. Alboran (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Agree with some of the comments above. This article is grossly biased throughout.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.33.179.1 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I also agree with the comments relating to some of the conclusions this article draws. The auctions were only a siptom of the whole telecoms boom that imediately preceded the telecoms crash of 2000. Of far greater impact was the assumption by equipment vendors that the above trend growth in revenue of the proceeding five years, that had largely been driven by the "Y2K scare" would continue indefinately. When the gaps in the future CAPEX expenditure forecasts started to become obvious (Q1-Q2 2000) that is what really started to spook the markets. Many of the vendors played games to try and hide the reality, but eventually they could only stretch facts so far and hence the eventual bursting of the bubble.
The impact of the auctions only made it worse as it dragged the operators into the whole sorry mess caused by overly optimistic forecast of future market revenues. For some reason nobody really took into account that market saturation would eventually impact revenue growth, go figure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.49.255 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even just a matter of neutrality - the whole thing basically is just a personal essay. At any rate, that's how it reads. --91.84.214.151 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Wikipedia articles should not be used to advance novel theses. If the thesis being advanced is not novel, it should be possible to cite someone else saying it - and then describe it as a claim rather than a fact, if it is contested - as the thesis of this article clearly is! If it is novel, then it's original research. I've tagged the article as original research because it appears to be.--greenrd (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theses