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: wonk who wrote (7530)	9/23/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Rocket Scientist	Respond to of 29987

Thanks WW (great handle by the way) But FYI, area of Alaska is about 20% of lower 48 (I looked it up) RS

To: wonk who wrote (7530)	9/24/1999 11:11:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Respond to of 29987

"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) I'll bet the 98% statistic includes Ridgewood, NJ (11 miles from Manhattan) as reliably covered. Unfortunately, that isn't really true, as the following article in a town paper suggests: (snip) COUNCIL URGED TO TAKE STAND AGAINST TOWER Village residents are urging the Ridgewood Council to take a strong stand against the proposed cellular communications tower the New Jersey Department of Transportation wants to build near the Route 17 South park-and-ride lot. "We'd like to hear what, if anything, can be done not to put this tower in our neighborhood," said Tim Herzog of Race Track Road. "We'd like to know what the town council can or can't do for us to keep the tower out of Ridgewood.". . . . The tower, scaled down from 160 feet to 120 feet by an ordinance Ridgewood adopted some months ago would be located on land the DOT owns. . . . Herzog also urged that the Ho-ho-kus [next to Ridgewood] officials who had battled against a cellular telephone tower in that municipality be contacted for their advice and support. The issue of the Ho-ho-kus tower is now in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The tower application, proposed by three cellular carriers. . . . (snip) The spot being proposed for the Ridgewood tower may be the least residential spot in town. Ridgewood has various spots where cellular phones just don't work, especially in digital mode. Digital is still being used by Bell Atlantic as a fill-in to cope with capacity limitations, over their analog buildout, not as a primary means of coverage. To say that buildout is complete if any given area is covered by 2 operators also stretches the utility of that buildout. If I regularly (e.g., via commute) go between two points, I probably travel through various areas that are reliably served by two carriers. Unfortunately, those areas may not be covered by the same two carriers through the entire route, unless I am following a single major highway. For instance, I might start in an area covered by BEL and Omnipoint (note: different phones required), into an area covered by BEL and ATT (oops! two different phones again), and then into an area covered by Omnipoint and ATT (oops, my BEL phone won't work!). The "swiss cheese" issue has to be viewed from the point of view of each individual provider, because any given customer (read: potential G* customer) will be subject to the limitations of his provider's buildout. So, the "98%" may itself may be a "lie, damned lie or statistic", which I think further supports your point. Best regards, JS