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: Daskin who wrote (9368)	1/9/2000 9:56:00 AM
From: Timothy R. Tierney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

"The fact of the matter is that 95% of all wireless users (I am being very conservative) are in or near a major population center with no need EVER for satellite service. How many people do you think there are on oil rigs, ships or in Iowa cornfields anyway.".....Mr. Dave Baker Does this statement make any sense?...The question is ...how many people would use wireless if it were available outside major population areas? How does one know "there is no need EVER for satellite service." I work for a company that requires our employees to travel all over the geographic area in a 100 mile radius..and they lose and drop calls all the time. they are frequently out of cell tower range...They would like nothing better then to be able to have uniform coverage with their cell phone...And I'm talking about Philadelphia, Pa. There are many, many business men that frequently travel outside major population areas on business and would be delighted to have this service...The people who think that only city folk have the money or need for wireless phone service and that is where business is transacted are very very narrowly focused.

To: Daskin who wrote (9368)	1/9/2000 10:08:00 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

It's a very good question I believe it is also true. The problem seems to be that both GSTRF's proponents and detractors are fixated on market segments that IRIDQ proved do not exist in any meaningful numbers: the jet-setting always-in-touch-at-any-cost executive, the petroleum geologist prospecting in the wilderness, etc. People should forget about these markets. Of course there will be some who fall into these categories, but not enough to really matter. The real market GSTRF is ideally positioned to serve is those who have no phone service at all yet, which encompasses well over half of the globe's population in developing nations. And no, nobody expects a rural village in India or China to pay $1+ per minute for phone service. However, when one compares the cost of governmental subsidies to bring G* phone service to remote areas either for free or for trivial cost vs. the cost for that same government to build the infrastructure to extend traditional wireline phone service to their hinterlands it becomes very clear that the G* subsidy route is vastly cheaper and represents the only feasible path to bringing basic telephony to these areas over the next 10+ years. That's the real market I expect will propel GSTRF going forward. Unfortunately, I also expect it will take another 2-5 years before it becomes abundantly clear just how huge this market really is. The real question in my mind is will the market be patient enough to see this come to pass? And how will it react when, predictably, the "executive toy" market proves no deeper for GSTRF than it did for IRID?