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 : METRICOM - Wireless Data Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (2397)	8/4/2000 12:21:38 PM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 3376

Rich: AH, a neat trick by the author: by using the '3G' label for MCOM's next generation, and saying their next generation isn't there yet... he's implying MCOM is behind other '3G' players. FALSE FALSE FALSE ... the '3G' label ought to be used to refer only to the voice players' various systems, not for MCOM... the system architectures are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. This author is either completely ignorant of the issues of frequency reuse via microcellular architecture, or worse, he's abused the technical jargon on purpose. I'd say the author suffers from both problems, although I'll be kind and assume the abuse isn't on purpose. ;-) The scary thing could be he believes what he writes! Then again....being a mouthpiece for vested interests DOES happen all the time. John~

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (2397)	8/4/2000 1:28:45 PM
From: silversoldier a/k/a SI Sy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3376

Rich, thanks for an excellent response to the Forbes article. I am in accord with the remarks made by you, John and rrufff. However, there is one reference in the article that does contain a valid element which needs to be addressed. We cannot do it. Only MCOM can. You correctly dismiss the past sales argument. Sales of Ricochet1 were halted by MCOM when it became clear to management that there would be little value, if any, in continuing to expend any monies to market an obsolescent product. It is not necessary here to discuss the underlying reasons for this wise decision. On the other hand, bashers, with an agenda or not, find it convenient to point out that revenues diminished, without mentioning the reasons why. However, the last paragraph of the article does contain a legitimate complement to the sales issue. This fellow Gillott is on target with his remarks about execution of the business plan for Ricochet2. "The issue is they have to get it out there and get it used." I believe that this is the issue which is unanswered and the failure to do so may well be the reason for MCOM's sluggish price performance. There are two aspects of marketing that have concerned me for many months and may affect Market Mavens as well. First, it has been and continues to be an agonizingly slow process to sign up qualified service providers/resellers. Tacitly, MCOM seems to agree that more than the handful, so far announced, will be necessary. Second, and perhaps more important, MCOM must, in some intelligent manner, periodically publish the numbers of subscribers to Ricochet2. Unless it does, it seems to me, the Mavens will be unable to corroborate any claims of a successful launch. I do recognize that there may be some need to provide a "Bodyguard of Lies" to attend precious facts but I have every confidence the magnificent team that created Ricochet2 is up to that task. One other musing. Has anyone given any thought to the possible effect the INSP/GNET merger may have on a prospective MCOM/Digeo partnership, or is it premature to consider? Sy