Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (4931)	8/15/1999 2:56:00 AM
From: wonk	Respond to of 12823

elmatador: Just a point of clarification: I believe you were quoting someone else here but it does need to be fleshed out a little better. ... "In the U.S. wireless currently reaches only 20% of the territory; at least 45% of the U.S. will never be economically served by wireless;.." What's the old phrase: "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." (grin) Currently, over 98% of the U.S population is covered by reliable radio coverage of at least 2 cellular operators. PCS coverage exceeds 70% of the pops. (Source: DLJ's Summer 1999 "Dick Tracy" report) If one doesn't highlight it, the distinction between geographic area covered and population served gets lost. Regarding the above, I'm presuming the original author meant geographic coverage, but even this statistics is - I believe - unfairly alarming. Harkening back to my grammar school geography, Alaska alone in geographic area is 2/5 to 1/2 that of the 48 contiguous states. Therefore, if the author of the above statement is including Alaska - which will likely only ever have cellular or PCS coverage of 2-3% of the land mass - one would arrive at the conclusion that (1) geographic coverage of the lower 48 is currently something on the order of 40% and (2) ultimately the lower 48 would have almost seamless coverage - 90%. Considering the vast tracts out west where one encounters absolutely nothing, it seems to me be that even current coverage is pretty good. If my understanding is correct, the statistic was presented by the original author to highlight the viability of satellites. Certainly, I am a believer that satellites will have an role - and a significant one in - in a LM solution. But stats like this do not make the business case. ww