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: Jeff Vayda who wrote (28563)	4/18/2012 3:38:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

PCSTEL thinks Globalstar is doing just fine, sticking it to customers with yet another damn monthly arpu plan. People have had enough of the stupid telco "plans". The share price suggests that the extra $40 a month, and buy a big phone, and pay a 'connection' fee and pay whatever other nasty charges are lurking in the fine print, is NOT turning on hordes of Apple acolytes or Android aficionados. Unsurprisingly, it looks like a fizzer. It's time for Globalstar to stop thinking about bertical people and start thinking about people. Maybe some lying in a hammock, without a vertical market bone in their body, who just want to make an occasional call. Who don't want another stupid monthly bill. MediaFLO thought a monthly bill would be a good idea too. "Well, the electricity and water supply monopolies do it, so why not us? So do other telcos. So we should too." Petrol stations don't have monthly "plans". Supermarkets don't sell "plans". Car dealers don't have monthly "plans" though some will arrange financing of the car. I wonder how far they'll watch the company go down the gurgler before they figure it out and take action. The share price suggests they have NOT hit the jackpot with the arpu plan. As you say, in India, in 1997, people were paying an arm and a leg to make a phone call from a public phone booth. Now, hordes of them have cellphones and cheap prices. That public phone booth opportunity is rapidly disappearing around the world. Mqurice

To: Jeff Vayda who wrote (28563)	4/21/2012 1:19:36 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Thus it seems pretty clear that deployment of new (small, lower cost?) cell sites for capacity enhancement is working very well to accommodate increasing amounts of data traffic, without imposing any significant burden on the wireless operators. Indeed, with the operators apparently able to include on-net WiFi traffic in the data they report to CTIA, as AT&T is probably doing, the need for more licensed spectrum may be reduced even further.” Simple solutions for those that already possess required spectrum. Unfortunately, for those companies that do not have licensed spectrum. Access to affordable spectrum rights looks increasingly bleek, as the incumbent CMRS providers continue to dominate spectrum auctions. Mr. Farrar has over the last 3 years, incorrectly in my opinion, claimed that the "spectrum crisis" is a farce, and that there actually is no real threat of insufficient spectral resources. All the while over 100Mhz of spectrum has been introduced or reintroduced into the market, and quickly consumed by the carriers. It is easy to claim that there is no "spectrum crisis" as new inventories of spectrum have entered into the marketplace to satisfy the demand. Mr. Farrar would have been correct if the new inventories made available had gone unsold and lain fallow in the marketplace. So he will play revisionist history and claim he was right, even though substantial amounts of new inventory has entered the market to squelch near term requirements. The real question is, will there be new inventory of available spectrum to continue to meet the requirements by potential new entrants? If DISH is building a network, will DIRECTV follow? Low cost equipment and deployment allows operators with access to smaller amounts of Nationwide sepctrum to build competitive networks. If spectral efficiencies double every 2.5 years as claimed, then a operator that held 10Mhz in 1998, would now have the spectral efficiencies of nearly 60Mhz of 1998 spectrum. Lower cost/high efficiency infrastructure should increase demand for even small amounts of spectral resources by companies wishing to build their own networks. In the past, high cost of infrastructure was one of the "barriers to entry", along with the requirement of 10's of Mhz of spectrum. You can claim that the low cost of infrastructure is lowering the demand for spectrum by existing carriers, but you haven't seen the reality of this thesis on the demand side for new spectrum at auction or in the aftermarket. In this regard, Mr. Farrar continues to claim he is correct about the lack of a spectrum crisis, while the reality of auctions and the resale market continue to prove he is wrong. PCSTEL