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: Maurice Winn who wrote (515)	3/18/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Globalstar phones will have the same 8818 or 8819 prefixes, so I would assume the caller pays will also apply.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (515)	3/18/1998 7:41:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Maurice, this post falls into the "fools rush in . . . ." category but here's my memory of an answer given to me regarding the origin of handset owner pays tradition in U.S. wireless vs. caller pays in wireline. Seems to me it was because the phone companies didn't have a seamless billing network for wireless calls, i.e., that they couldn't be sure they could tag the calling party so they said what the hell, we know for sure we can get our (wireless) customer to pay, ergo he/she gets the privilege for paying for both incoming and outgoing. In essence, since wireless was/is so relatively new in U.S. vis a vis Europe and Asia, that was the way things got started and that tradition has remained more or less in tact until very recently. Coming to the present, I see recent Sprint advertisements offering caller pays to their wireless customers as long as the call takes place in their "roaming region". And I am also aware that in a recent industry survey asking wireless customers and potential wireless customers what could be done to improve the attractiveness of wireless, the number one or two most frequent response was: institute caller pays. In any event, my impression was that handset owner pays was/is a reflection of U.S. wireless immaturity (if that is the right word) and that the times they may be a changing. I will now retire and await a deluge of flames under the assumption that I have this completely screwed up. Regards, Mike Doyle

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (515)	3/20/1998
From: I. Luttichuys	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Looks like it's a 3 for 1, Maurice. Should be on the wires shortly. BENNETT

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (515)	3/20/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Readware's comments regarding comet Shoemaker-Levy quite surprised me. It made it clear I'd been assuming a lot more about his level of knowledge (at least about physics) than was appropraite. I don't think he knows quite as much as he implies he does. Anyone who invests in LOR or GSTRF because of what readware says is a fool-- even if its the right investment, eventually you will be parted from your money by a hypester. Take what he says as a guidepost and then work to confirm or deny it with your own investigation. We need to do independant research, and I think these forums could be a great way to bring to light facts that others may not have uncovered.