Maurice,
Globalstar can't really be called a failure until the lifetime of the system expires and invested capital has been lost.
True, but I was concerned with Globalstar's ROI for investors. That was a failure.
We do agree that one must have total faith and believe in a company's management team. Too many executives remind me of "snake oil salesmen".
Regarding your "dynamic" pricing model, do you know how complex the billing software would be? While a good idea, I believe the complexlity of the billing SW would be at least one order of magnitude more complex.
By running the network at 80% or 90% of capacity, or 95% or 100% in peak times, but without any busy signals, profits would be much higher, network construction costs would be halved, subscriber frustration with overloading and dropped calls would reduce and prices could be halved and lots of customers gained.
Ok. How about Maurice & Dave wireless? Of course, we would have to use solely GSM (just kidding). Let me tell you why "we" would fail. What if our system was more successfull than we originally anticipated? The "system" would quickly be over-loaded, voice quality would suck, many dropped calls, etc. It would be very difficult to quickly deploy additional base stations and other infrastructure. Hence quality would suffer and perhaps our business would go under.
Now, that's not saying that we should profilerate "our" company with a base station in every house....
but, you get the picture.
Running things at 20% or 25% of capacity is no way to run a railroad
The build it and they will come model, eh?
Agreed. |
