Larry, given this market, humor may be all that we wind up with. Let's see if these notions make some headway. First, you will by now have determined that I cannot engage in any meaningful discussion on satellite technology. Like most on these boards, I read what the real technical guys have to say, stay up with George Gilder, LOR annual reports,etc., and try to make sense of it all in terms that I can deal with. Second, my only real goal is pick an industry that I think will grow materially faster than GNP, and then to pick a company within that group that I think will outperform its competitors. If all goes well, I will then have the best of the best, Doug will invite me out for a twenty year cruise, and Nicole Kidman will confuse me with the Mike Doyle that surfs, and . . . .
Your assertion of the relative strength of CDMA v. TDMA v. Analog caught me by surprise and I realized that I had not done my homework. Please check in with the QCOM thread on SI, post #4862, dated 10/20. In it, there is a URL that will link you to a MOT announcement regarding a recent successful test of a CDMA system in China. The text clearly states that CDMA has 3 times the capacity of TDMA (NOT Analog). Since the source is MOT and not QCOM, I would tend to believe that it is not industry hype. OTOH, I admit that it is not a completely unbiased independent testing agency. It is in any event consistent with my understanding although admittedly at the lower end of my last diatribe to you. If true however, 300% greater through put per transponder when combined with a system costing billions of dollars less to build, would put me in my "superior competitor" comfort zone. Does this mean that I think that you are going to lose your shirt with Iridium? Definitely not, because I* surely falls within the "superior industry" zone and even I must admit that MOT knows how to build birds. Readware recently referred to MOT's Iridium design as "technically elegant" so it's not like I think you've wandered off the reservation. Just think that elegance comes with one hell'uva price tag.
Now, as to maintenance and Motorola's design locking all data transfer in the sky. As cunning as my orbiting space repairman outfitted with a tool belt imagery was, you were of course correct to point out that repairs could be made via software code transmissions and you went on to exemplify the Mars mission as a perfect example of just how this worked in the real world. Well, the Jet Propulsion Lab has lost contact with Pathfinder as this is being written and attempts to get it on the horn have so far been met with "ain't nobody home". The rocket jockies in Pasadena think it has to do with the shock on landing and the rather frigid temperatures sapping battery life. Certainly commercial satellites will not be subjected to similar extremes and so the analogy isn't perfect by any means, but I do find myself more comforted with the notion of terrestial repair technology, more particularly since G* has arranged for the local telephone carrier re-sellers to pay for it. Again, Larry, this is not to deride Iridium, but only to tell you the reasoning behind my preference for G*, rightly or wrongly. Regards, Mike Doyle |
