Readware's comments, minus all the ones about rocks..... the discussion over on the Fool is getting very tiresome, so I deleted the continued debate over the comets et al.....sorry to those interested.....
LOR FAQ updated again....
========
Subject: Block Trade
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 2:47 PM
From: Readware
Message-id: <1998032314471701.JAA25843@ladder03.news.aol.com>
The non-US coroporate holder of LOR did inded divest itself of some LOR today-- 3 million shares-- as I indicated Friday it would.
Subject: Re: Block Trade
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 3:45 PM
From: Readware
Message-id: <1998032315454800.KAA02448@ladder03.news.aol.com>
The statement on the trade is 3 million shares "crossed" at $27 1/2 in London.The technical term I am told is "an off the board transaction". Perhaps someone in the US can look into this.
Subject: Re: Block Trade
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 5:01 PM
From: Readware
Message-id: <1998032317014201.MAA11849@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Post RR/Motley LOR board--
The 3 million share trade is confirmed by REUTERS News: British Aerospace (read-- non US corporate holder) divested itself of its remaining LOR holding. Trade executed by Goldman & Sachs.
End post.
Subject: IEE Consortium
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 8:18 PM
From: Readware
Message-id: <1998032320184601.PAA07448@ladder03.news.aol.com>
The IEE (Int'l Electrical Enginnering) Consortium paper on "the Satellite Revolution" projects a growth for the satcom industry from 3% of the global telecom market today to 10% in the year 2007. Since $1 out of every $15 in the year 2001 is expected to go to telecommunications (=$3 trillion of the global economy that year), the IIE argues for a serious growth in satcom revenues from current levels. "Terrestrial and satellite-based wire services
are likely to have the greatest percentage growth of any telecommunications service over the next decade, including fiber optic systems" (a direct quote). More importantly, the IEE sees VSAT growth as starting to grow sharply ("record sales of VSAT systems") (a reference here to Orion is in order), and "in hand-held receivers"). DBS is a significant portion of satellite revenues growth also, and the IEE sees greater convergence with Internet delivery
through DBS here.
The study is extremely satcom positive, and the numbers also. It is another study to be considered in the mix of comments on satcom providers as an investment. It is the trend in satcoms to which the study is pointing that catches one's eye. The actual numbers will need a lot of reworking, one would imagine, over the next few years.
The Globalstar seminar at the University of Colorado, Boulder, had Professor Arnaldo Magerfeld conducting a seminar on the problems relating to the technological issues facing G* in its devising the G* constellation. Brian Harms from Qualcomm was the featured lecturer.
Back on the road.
Subject: Mails on "Broadband and Light"
Date: Tue, Mar 24, 1998 8:56 PM
From: Readware
Message-id: <1998032420562901.PAA11465@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Re-read the piece again. I do not say that jitters can be eliminated. In fact I state that the technology on it still has to evolve. For the debate on this you may want to contact Scott Bradner of Harvard, Craig Partridge of BBN (Bolt Beranek), or William Blake of the IETF. None of them agree, and I am sure they have spent more than two years on this issue. I do not believe they post on the Motley board. Teledesic engineers, by the way, insist that
"memory buffers" are the answer to jitters in LEOs.
***
I did not in the piece say that latency could be eliminated. In the piece I talked about minimizing the effects of latency-- just reread it. And in prior posts have talked about "latency offset". How could latency be eliminated?
***
For the information on the Lockheed Martin handset as effectively countering "delays" from GEOs (the issue was broached with respect to offsetting delays from a G* GEO for telephony): Tom Reilly, who is the engineering director at Lockheed for ACeS (a 3 GEO voice/data system well underway for Southeast Asia) has stated that their handset for that constellation has an equivalent link margin to that of LEOs, thus almost totally eliminating propagation
delay. Call him. Write him. He'll give you more information on it, I would think. While I thought the handset would be avialable in 1999, I am now informed it will be available in late 1998.
***
As for Zenit-2: you should ask the G* management about it at the shareholder meeting. I have been told by engineers outside Loral and G* that Zenit-2 has the most advanced launch software, more avionics redundancies than any other laucn vehicle, that Boeing has worked with the Ukranians on Zenit-2 as well as now Zenit 3-L for Sea Launch, and that Zenit-2 has been completely refabbed. The Proton launch system, which originates in Russia, has a 96%
success rate. That is my answer to your question "Are the Russians up to speed in launching"? I find it inconceivable that G* management picked Zenit-2 for "political" reasons (whatever that means). But you can ask the management at the shareholder meeting. From what I have observed about G*, it has an inordinate drive to succeed, and how politics can play into that (whatever "politics" means) you'll have to ask the company.
***
You are right about Iridium vs. Globalstar. Globalstar is for land traffic, not maritime. I had posted some 14 months ago that Iridium World would capture the ocean cargo and ocean cruise market because of its intersatellite linking not needing terrestrial gateways. Many pundits held that Iridium was not going to financially succeed because of a lack of demand. Iridium is only going to have a few well-heeled business travellers-- wasn't that the
claim?. Who else is going to use it? It will be bleeding debt. All the pundits had to do was look at the orbital paths of Iridium, look at those of Globalstar, and then contact maritime cargo carriers, cruise lines, and airplane companies: "Will you be using/carrying the Iridium service?" It wasn't really difficult to figure out that Iridium would do well.
***
As for ViaSat, I do not know why it is rising in price. I have said all along that it is a good company, with good technologies. I said that when the stock was $18, and when it was $12. Price follows business.
***
I think Celestri will be a very formidable competitor to SkyBridge-- very formidable. SkyBridge has to resolve that 20 millisecond issue, as I had written, you are correct. It has not yet been resolved, to answer your question. Celestri's plans are ambitious. It plans on being the number one internet/data service provider in the world among satcoms. John Pientka, if you can ever get a hold of him, is your man at Celestri. The guy is brilliant. |
