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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djane who wrote (7087)	8/31/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: Rocket Scientist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

S. Africa license delayed? messages.yahoo.com

To: djane who wrote (7087)	8/31/1999 8:48:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 29987

G* vs. I* exchange on yahoo thread Top>Business & Finance>Investments>Sectors>Services>Communications Services>GSTRF (Globalstar Telecommun.) PCSTEL, changing subject again? by: GainsRus (39/M) 11191 of 11200 I see that once Rocket decimates one bogus argument with simple fact based statements, you just launch into typical short verbiage on a whole disconnected range of alternates. But, just for a response to one question where you said: <<<The phones are slightly smaller... What is the advantage??? >>> 1) CDMA, and implications of this alone are huge. 2) Reliable operation. I* worked very poorly at roll out. 3) Call quality seems to be quite superior per anecdotal reports. Time will tell. 4) Much lower prices AT ROLL OUT, than I* had at roll out. 5) Local Tellcomm provider partners making billing issues a snap. 6) Tri-modal Qcom phone, user friendly and not requiring widgets and engineering degrees for cell phone operation. 7) Path diversity multi Sat links yielding much better reliability of line of sight connect, and less "dropped" calls. 8) More reliable switching, based on design architecture. 9) Users will not want to buy phones and service from a "bankrupt" and uncertain future co. with a bad reputation like I. 10) Less propagation delay, resulting in no percpetible voice delay. 11) Backing by the partners and large Telephony companies worldwide, giving "assurance" to potential subscribers of stability and future service. These are a few of the "practical" laymen's reasons that I and G* are not comparable to the end user. The technical and business plan advantages of G* would take volumes to cover. But then, we're not really interested in a truly objective look at that anyway, are we PCSTEL? Good luck with your "short". You may well need it. Posted: 8/31/1999 7:18 pm EDT as a reply to: Msg 11189 by PCSTEL _________________________________ Gains Rus.. by: PCSTEL 11199 of 11200 Ok.. Now we have something.. Not just senseless banter.. I'll try my best to give you a alternative perspective >>1) CDMA, and implications of this alone are huge.<< The G* air link interface based on IS-95 technology, is by most accounts and reports.. superior in spectrial efficiencies over TDMA based technologies. This is important when competing against other operators who may have deployed "another" technology which do not have the advantages of CDMA.. The argument being that the operator using a IS-95 type CDMA interface should be able to undercut the competition because of spectrial efficiecies.. i.e. more billable minutes for one system vs. another.. This would be an important cavet for Globalstar "IF" there was a compeditor which had equall network loading, and equal debt load. I* bankruptcy takes away any technical advantage that the CDMA air interface may have hearlded in the short term.. >> 2) Reliable operation. I* worked very poorly at roll out.<< Really??? Did you use it??? All the reprots that I read said that once connected the system worked fine.. There were many reports about dropped calls etc.. So we will have to wait and see if G* is immune to these problems.. So far all you have to go on is Managements statements.. Also remember that the system probably has not been tested under heavy loading.. It will be interesting how good "fast power control" works when the Base Station is traveling at over 1000 miles an hour, and is 800 miles in the air.. That should make "fast power control" in cellular operations look like "Sand box physics" >>3) Call quality seems to be quite superior per anecdotal reports. Time will tell.<< Agreed.. However, the call quality differential has not send thousands of ATT customers fleeing to Sprint PCS >>4) Much lower prices AT ROLL OUT, than I* had at roll out.<< Interesting comparision.. The price of a new Pentium 3 computer today is lower than the cost of a new 486DX66 computer when it was new. Pricing comparsions should be compared at today's rates.. Statistics are a wonderful thing.. 5) Local Tellcomm provider partners making billing issues a snap. >>Really??? So what you are saying is that there is a unified billing structure between local service providers?? So lets say I am a G* user with Airtouch.. Now I travel to Brazil and call Lisbon??? I can make the call with confidence because I know exactly what Airtouch is going to charge me while roaming on another SP's gateway calling internationally. I thought that rates were set individuially my the local SP.. So if there is a differential in airtime charges between what Airtouch has quoted me, and the Brazilian Provider. How does this differential get resolved... I know it's a Snap.. Continued>> Posted: 8/31/1999 8:18 pm EDT as a reply to: Msg 11191 by GainsRus _____________________________________ Gains Rus Part2 by: PCSTEL 11200 of 11200 >>6) Tri-modal Qcom phone, user friendly and not requiring widgets and engineering degrees for cell phone operation.<< And the same goes for the ERICY phone??? The Orbitel phone?? As a QCOM long.. I have a lot of faith in the QCOM developed portion of the G* system.. I just don't think there is a market for it period... Have you used a G* phone??? You act like you have.. >>7) Path diversity multi Sat links yielding much better reliability of line of sight connect, and less "dropped" calls.<< Hopefully!!! Yet to be seen how it performs in regards to system minute capacity.. >>8) More reliable switching, based on design architecture.<< I think you are reaching a bit on this one... Everything goes to the PSTN.. period.. >>9) Users will not want to buy phones and service from a "bankrupt" and uncertain future co. with a bad reputation like I.<< I currently has user base... This argument goes away when I* emerges from BK with debt restructured. >>10) Less propagation delay, resulting in no percpetible voice delay.<< Maybe you are refering to Inmarsat phones.. G* sats are in higher orbit than I* sats.. Therefore propagation delay "signal travels further" should be at best equal to I* >>11) Backing by the partners and large Telephony companies worldwide, giving "assurance" to potential subscribers of stability and future service.<< "Please talk to debt holders for re-assurnaces" >>These are a few of the "practical" laymen's reasons that I* and G* are not comparable to the end user. The technical and business plan advantages of G* would take volumes to cover.<< >>Please try!!!!<< PCSTEL Posted: 8/31/1999 8:19 pm EDT as a reply to: Msg 11199 by PCSTEL