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 : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Secret_Agent_Man who wrote (25635)	9/11/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: MARK BARGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

I got a chance to speak with Cheryl Mitchell (Coporate Communications of Digitcom) just a bit ago. She is under the impression that DGIV will get revenues on 100% of the long distance minutes mentioned on today's press release, but will check to verify. She exchanged e-mails with JC last night. Her impression on this deal is that DGIV gets it's revenues from this deal by sharing the cost savings with Egypt Telecom Partners from using IP LD instead of "standard" LD. DGIV is negotiating to get between 30%-50% of the cost savings of using IP tech. to reduce ETP's cost of long distance service. Using DGIV's technology they project reducing their cost from .60/min. to around .08/min. If DGIV were to get 35% of these cost savings, that amounts to .18/min for DGIV. I am lead to believe that this is JC's strategy in the other countries also. .18/min times 110 mil. min. per year is $19.8 mil. per year. Sounds like a win/win situation for both parners. One can see why poorer countries especially would be receptive to this type of arrangement. Part of the savings comes from being able to have 187 simultaneous calls per T-1 line versus only 62 calls as is it now. The idea, as I get it is, that DGIV shares in any cost savings that these foreign telcos. achieve by using IP technology. I would appreciate any and all comments. Mark