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 : Leap Wireless International (LWIN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: engineer who wrote (2534)	10/17/2002 12:48:12 AM
From: verdad	Respond to of 2737

The upbeat opinion provided by the market maker (that is itself under significant financial pressure) on many of the aforementioned wireless stocks seems dubious. However, assuming the optimistic view is correct, it doesn't appear to materially improve the outlook for heavily indebted wireless firms like LWIN. An announcement by LWIN customers stating forgiveness of debts or significant [favorable] modifications to covenants or financial terms would be helpful, although highly unlikely.

To: engineer who wrote (2534)	10/19/2002 12:41:08 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2737

AP story on "reverse billing" / wireless "number portability" etc. October 18, 2002 Calling Cell Phones Could Cost More By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 2:43 p.m. ET NEW YORK (AP) -- Here's another reason to check your telephone bill closely. A subtle realignment this fall in the nation's inscrutable tangle of phone systems could cause a surprising increase in what some consumers pay to call cell phones from traditional landlines. The change, rooted in the different ways landline and wireless phone networks are laid out, means some calls to cell phones that were once considered local now incur higher toll charges. For most people, the increases will be negligible. Verizon Inc., the largest regional phone company, estimates that in the 33 million households it serves, the average bill will rise pennies per month. Even so, Verizon warned customers about the new policy in an insert with September phone bills and acknowledged that some people's monthly charges could jump $10 or $20 unless they change their calling habits. ``This change may come as a shock to many wireline customers the first time they see it on their bills, and could cause callers to hesitate next time they reach for the phone and want to dial a wireless number,'' said Travis Larson, spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, a trade organization for wireless carriers. The billing change doesn't appear to have caused serious trouble where it already has been in effect, mainly in the West and Midwest. ``I'm not aware that this is an issue that we get a lot of consumer complaints on,'' said Federal Communications Commission spokeswoman Meribeth McCarrick. Why is this happening? Area codes are divided into ``rate centers'' with their own number prefixes. Calls to nearby rate centers are considered local, while those to further rate centers generate intra-state or regional toll prices. Calls between more spread-out points count as long-distance. Because of differences in how wireless networks are set up, wireless carriers don't need to get phone numbers in every local rate center. So your cell phone could have a number from a rate center distant from your home. For such customers, a call from home to their cell phone could incur per-minute toll charges. To stimulate use of mobile phones, wireless carriers years ago got landline companies to treat such calls as local. Wireless carriers reimbursed landline companies for the lost toll revenue -- a process known as reverse billing or wide-area calling. Reverse billing has diminished over time, largely because wireless companies acquired numbers in more rate centers as their customer base exploded. For example, in New York state, fewer than 6 percent of wireless phone exchanges still employ reverse billing, said Michael O'Connor, a director of federal regulatory issues at Verizon. Similarly, Sprint PCS estimates that wireless billing covers fewer than 5 percent of its customers, said Jack Weyforth, manager of carrier interconnection. AT&T Wireless spokeswoman Rochelle Cohen said ``a very small percentage of our customers have these sorts of phone numbers.'' On Nov. 24, reverse billing will begin to die altogether. The FCC is changing how phone numbers are allocated to different providers and in many cases reverse-billing systems aren't sophisticated enough to deal with that switch. The final blow to reverse-billing should come next year as consumers get ``number portability,'' the right to keep their mobile numbers if they switch carriers. Michael Altschul, general counsel for the cell-phone industry group, said local phone companies asked regulators in several states to let them kill reverse billing. That forced wireless companies to establish their own connections in local rate centers by leasing costly equipment and space from landline companies, he said. ``We're disappointed with the (local phone companies) that they're discontinuing this service, because it was meeting the needs of customers,'' added Diane Rainey, a spokeswoman for wireless carrier Nextel Corp. Sam Simon, chairman of the Telecommunications Research & Action Center, a consumer rights group, said complexities of the phone system make it unclear how widespread the new charges will be. No phone company would give details on where people could be affected. All nine states where BellSouth Corp. is the local phone provider got rid of the old billing system by Oct. 1, spokesman Jeff Battcher said. In the 14 states served by Qwest Communications International Inc., the change is scheduled to take effect in November, though Qwest is working on ways to extend the old system wherever possible, spokeswoman Carey Brandt said. Many SBC Communications Inc. customers experienced the change several years ago. People in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas will begin to see it this fall, SBC spokesman Kevin Belgrade said. ^------ On the Net: Wireless industry association: wow-com.com Local phone companies' organization: usta.org Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company.

To: engineer who wrote (2534)	10/24/2002 5:16:24 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 2737

Looks like the mysterious "MCG PCS Inc." is ... a guy ! (A guy who also happens to be a medical doctor). (He may be the only one person corporation that can claim responsibility for leading to the eventual destruction of a nearly $1 billion per year revenue company. Time will tell ...) This info. is from a post on the usually useless Yahoo Leap Wireless message board messages.yahoo.com post # 25981 messages.yahoo.com ******************************************** New SEC filing by: silicon_stress (38/M/Sunnyvale, CA) Long-Term Sentiment: Hold 10/24/02 02:20 pm Msg: 25981 of 25988 Looks like this guy now owns 36% of LWIN outstanding shares? I think he sold licenses to LWIN and was given >21,000,000 shares as partial payment. Can anyone enlighten the board?? Item 2. Identity and Background This statement is being filed by MCG PCS, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and by Michael C. Gelfand, who is the President, sole director, and sole shareholder of that corporation. The interests reported herein with respect to Michael C. Gelfand are beneficial interests solely as a result of those capacities. The address of MCG PCS, Inc. is 4915 Auburn Avenue, Suite 200, Bethesda,Maryland 20814. Its business is investment in personal communications system (PCS) licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The address of Michael C. Gelfand is P.O. Box 389, Palm Beach, Florida, 33480. His business is a medical doctor, practicing under his wholly owned corporation, Michael C. Gelfand. M.D., P.A., the address of which is 4915 Auburn Avenue, Suite 200, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Neither MCG PCS, Inc. nor Michael C. Gelfand has,in the last five years been convicted in a criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations or similar misdemeanors), and neither MCG PCS, Inc. nor Michael C. Gelfand has, within the last five years, been a party to a civil proceeding of a judicial or administrative body of competent jurisdiction as a result of which either MCG PCS, Inc. or Michael C. Gelfand was or is subject to a judgment, decree or final order enjoining future violations of, or mandating activities subject to, federal or state securities laws or finding andy violation with respect to such laws. Item 3. Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration The securities which are the suject of this filing were issued by the issuer in part payment of a sale of PCS licenses by MCG PCS, Inc. (directly and through MCG PCS Licensee Corporation) pursuant to a contract dated September 1, 2000, under which issuer had an option to pay part of the consideration by the issuance of its common stock. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the amount and form of such consideration payable. That dispute was finally resolved on October 7, 2002, by a decision of the Arbitrator appointed to resolve the dispute pursuant to proceedings before the American Arbitration Association, and certificate for 21,020,431 shares of common stock of the issuer was delivered to MCG PCS, Inc. on October 11, 2002, in full satisfaction of the arbitral award. Item 4. Purpose of Transaction The purpose of the transaction was to receive payment pursuant to the arbitral award. Neither MCG PCS, Inc. nor Michael C. Gelfand has any present intention with respect to such securities other than to hold them for investment and/or to sell such securities as market conditions warrant. Item 5. Interest in Securities of the Issuer MCG PCS, Inc. holds 21,020,431 shares of Leap Wireless International Inc. common stock, which is 35.9% of the issued and outstanding common stock if the issuer. It has sole power to vote or direct the vote of 21,020,431 shares and no shared power. Michael C. Gelfand has the same powers as MCG PCS, Inc. with respect to the same shares of stock by virtue of his ownership in and control over MCG PCS, Inc. Neither MCG PCS, Inc. nor Michael C. Gelfand has engaged in any transaction with respect to any of the shares of stock herein reported. Item 6. Contracts, Arrangements, Understandings or Relationships with Respect to Securities of the Issuer None. Item 7. Material to Be Filed as Exhibits None. ********************************************* END.