SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4969)8/13/1999 10:39:00 PM
From: Jeff Hayden  Respond to of 12823
 
While I feel very sorry for those who invested in IRID, I must say that bankruptcy was the company's only option for survival. One can only hope the original stockholders might see some return some years from now.

Now that the bankruptcy is started, Iridium has to drop the phone and access charges even more drastically if they really do wish to survive. I don't think any user can justify paying service charges greater than $1/minute. I don't care if the user is in the middle of the Congo. The phones should cost no more than $300-$400. With user costs at these levels, Iridium should capture 100,000's of customers. If prices are brought near to cell phone costs (and the phone size reduced), I should think the company can capture millions of customers.



To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (4969)8/14/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: psh  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 12823
 
Frank,

What are your thoughts on @HOME being a pure distributor of bandwidth with no direct role in providing content? Are there any other potential revenues in this model aside from being the ultimate cable service provider (eg voice-if the technical factors are worked out?) Thanks for pointing out the DenverTEchie post.