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.

Technology Stocks : Winstar Comm. (WCII) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SteveG who wrote (9043)	11/2/1998 7:49:00 AM
From: wrm1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12468

Steve, Could you expand your buy and hold comment. As a trader, where are we with regards to near term resistance both up and down? Thanks in advance: WRM1

To: SteveG who wrote (9043)	11/2/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: Bernard Levy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12468

Hi Steve: Quickly, my take on Skybridge. I think that Pascal Sourisse is slightly misleading when he states that using the Ku band represents an advantage over the Ka band because attenuation is larger in the Ka band than in the Ku band. This is true, but he neglects to mention that if antennas of the same size are used at both sets of frequencies the transmitter and receiver antenna gains are larger in the Ka band, which more than overcomes the smaller attenuation (if you recall, this is exactly the same computation we made to disprove TGNT's claims concerning the advantages of the 24GHz band over the 38GHz band). For the Ka versus Ku bands, I could even point you to an IEEE Proceedings paper by W. W. Wu which carries the computation in more detail. Another complication of using the Ku band is the complicated scheme used by the Skybridge satellites to avoid interference with Ku-band GEO satellites. So in the battle of the frequency bands, I would have to give an advantage to Teledesic which will use the Ka band. With respect to satellite system architecture, Skybridge will use a bent pipe system (like Globalstar) which means that its LEO satellites will just be in essence relays (with some beam steering capabilities), by opposition with the Teledesic system which will use in-space switching, and will have satellite to satellite communications. The switching for Skybridge will be performed by earth-based gateways. This architecture is simpler and cheaper. Its capabilities are more limited than a space-based switching system, but more robust, since it is easy to replace the electronics at gateways, while failures of satellite-based electronic switches requires replacing the satellite (Iridium uses space-based switching and has already had to replace several satellites). So I give an advantage to Skybridge for system robustness (although the beam switching scheme for avoiding GEO satellite interference raises some concern). Another feature which Skybridge has always had, and that Teledesic added only after MOT became a partner is that both use a mixture of GEO and LEO satellites. Why is the use of GEO satellites a good idea? Because an individual LEO satellite has only a short amount of time during which it is in sight of an earth station, it can only transmit an information burst. For large transfers, a handoff must be implemented where the next satellite takes over, etc... By opposition, a GEO satellite is always in sight and can therefore accommodate a large transfer. Also for multicast applications requiring the delivery of the same information (weather maps, stock quotes, etc...) to many geographically dispersed sites, a GEO is better adapted because of its huge geographical coverage. It is really amazing that Bill Gates and Craig McCaw were planning to use a LEO only system until Motorola stepped in. So, with respect to the LEO/GEO mix, I give a tie to Skybridge and Teledesic. Finally with respect to time to market, Skybridge will have a 2-year lead with respect to Teledesic, which is a plus. I am not sure I completely trust the $40-$50 cost/month per user, although Cyberstar quotes the same cost figure. However, if Skybridge can achieve it, broadband data by satellite will be very attractive for many consumers. Terrestrial wireless will probably dominate in high-density urban areas, but satellites would have a competitive advantage for rural and suburban areas. At least, that's what I am hoping with my stakes in LOR and WCII, i.e., I hope that both will be big winners. As indicated above, I also like several features of Teledesic, so that I rate Skybridge and Teledesic fairly evenly. Teledesic will of course be the beneficiary of Microsoft's huge web presence, although with the Justice Dept's case against MSFT, I do not know if MSFT and Teledesic will be allowed to form an alliance. Best regards, Bernard Levy