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: ~digs who wrote (26269)	9/20/1998 5:01:00 AM
From: DavidCG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50264

My motive was to compare FTEL to DGIV. First, to answer Bird who quoted my statement about shares of FTEL. Reread. I did not say FTEL WAS diluting float. I said I had no personal way of verifying if they were or not between each quarterly report, and I am looking for a method to do so. It is true, the only thing I have to go on is FTEL's quarterly reports which they FILE WITH THE SEC. However, FTEL could dilute between those quarters without me knowing.. That was my point on the FTEL thread. The difference is DGIV could dilute float or Outstanding shares anytime they want to during 1998 and you wouldn't be the wiser. Not on a quarterly basis, at least, because DGIV does not report to the SEC as of yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now to answer protege's question... I am stating a fact. DGIV is non-reporting. DGIV said once before that they would file with the SEC and fell short of that goal back in May 1998. And now DGIV is restating their intention to file once again. So to claim that "it could be described as imminent" this time is speculation on your part. They may do it soon and they may decide to put it off again. Only time will tell. To me, SEC listing isn't a huge deal except that it will lend to DGIV's credibility as a public corporation once it launches its network. I agree with your point #2 in that Jimmy Chin may be more personable. (Though if you go to see a picture of Frank Peters on FTEL's web site I swear he's a spitting image of Santa Claus in a suit) ftel.com As to point #1, I disagree that DGIV is moreso "macro" compared to FTEL. I'll quote from the CEO of FTEL: Frank Peters message over the weekend: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, we have operational nodes in the United Kingdom, Guatemala, and Bosnia, with El Salvador, Honduras, New Zealand, Australia, and Curacao coming online within the next 60-120 days. In addition, we have several contracts in final negotiations (Russia, S. Africa, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria,Italy, Philipines, China, Brazil), and hope to close these by the end of the year when our funding has been concluded. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think both companies (FTEL and DGIV) are looking to hook up about the same number of foreign countries in the future. I believe that DGIV's strategy seems to be..."let's connect the entire Pacific Rim at once" at some point in time vs. FTEL's strategy of "let's connect select countries all over the world one by one." It is interesting that the two SI threads (FTEL and DGIV) don't interact at all. Because it isn't like this Trillion dollar communications market doesn't have room to two very small Internet Telephony companies which have commonalities. For me, I get to see where DGIV and FTEL stand against one another in time frame in the up and coming months. FTEL is in the lead right now in regards to Internet telephony revenues coming in. I also believe DGIV could have more countries connected overall if they decide in January/February 1999 to connect all Pacific Rim countries at once. The first quarter of 1999 sounds plausible and reasonable. I hope DGIV takes one billion dollars out of the telecommunications market and FTEL takes their one billion dollars out of it too. I think DGIVians should be aware what FTEL is accomplishing and I believe FTELians should be equally aware what DGIV is doing. As they are both striving to complete the same goal. There may be a lot of internet telephony companies being launched now but only a handful are PHONE-to-PHONE operated. Phone to Phone IP is where the money is at. -DavidCG