How could an "unprofitable company be building a nationwide wireless network?" Logically its backward: If ~profitable -- ~ buildout. The opposite would be of course: If buildout -- profitable. What am I missing here?
Establishing new paradigms in wireless technology are obviously capital intensive. So there's an extra component in there - the time factor. And of course, a cash infusion that comes from "someone else" who has that part and wants the end result - more cash.
I would imagine that their available money is going into building the new state of the art wireless network in the biggerst cities in the country, thus draining their money and building a vast empire that when intact will generate great wealth! Then and only then will the profits come forth!
Actually SD, in the crazy world of logic, being considered a contrapositive, it can follow. If not A (profitable) then not B (buildout), (contra) if B (buildout) then A (profitable). Just because a condition is sufficient doesn't mean its necessary outcome will arrive, so with that you are correct. However, my point also stands that although it may not be necessary to be profitable (sufficient) to have a buildout (necessary), its still happening. So, it actually does lean towards the fact that all B are A in this case, as most unprofitable businesses dont build networks, they fail. Therefore, my initial question still stands. How does an unprofitable company roll out a network? How is B, A?
Overall, we both could be wrong, or right, as both points made are valid.