SI
SI
discoversearch

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: djane who wrote (4439)5/4/1999 2:53:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 


Iridium shifts to vertical market target

May 3, 1999

By Antony Bruno

Iridium L.L.C.'s first full quarter of operation was marked with handset
production delays, distribution problems, low subscriber numbers and a
deepening net loss, the aftermath of which has led the company to
re-evaluate its strategic focus and upper management team.

Since launching in November, Iridium said it has signed up just more than
10,000 subscribers, far short of the 27,000 needed to comply with its
bank loan covenants. The lower subscriber count, while expected, led to
first-quarter revenues of $1.45 million, which in turn resulted in a quarterly
net loss of $505 million, or $3.45 per share. Iridium's bank covenants also
required first-quarter accrued revenue of $30 million.

‘‘Although we have succeeded in building a network that is providing
high-quality service to our customers, we were very disappointed with our
first-quarter customer and revenue numbers,'' said John A. Richardson,
interim chief executive officer. Ed Staiano, former vice chairman and CEO,
announced his resignation last week.

‘‘Clearly, we have a great deal of work to do to improve our marketing,
distribution and sales activities all over the world,'' added Richardson.

Ever since commercially activating the network, Iridium said it would begin
to make the transition from its building phase to a marketing one. As part
of its first-quarter earnings presentation, the company announced more
concrete actions to complete that transition.

Marketing

Iridium laid out several marketing plans, including adjusting its target
market and possibly reducing the cost of service and handsets.

The company said it had about 10,294 subscribers on the Iridium system
when the quarter ended March 31. About 7,000 of those were identified
as satellite voice customers, 1,000 cellular roaming customers and 2,000
satellite paging customers.

Iridium blamed the disappointing figures on the limited availability of
handsets because of distribution issues, continued lack of trained sales staff
and Kyocera Corp.'s delay in production, which was not resolved until
late in the first quarter.

Leo Mondale, senior vice president of planning and business development,
detailed Iridium's plans to reverse this trend.

‘‘We are tailoring Iridium products to better fit the marketing channel,'' he
said. ‘‘We will accelerate the introduction of Iridium products and services
to channels proven most effective to date and reconsider product and
service pricing.''

The most popular early adopters to date have been those in fields such as
maritime, natural resource extraction, aeronautics and government.

‘‘Many of Iridium's early customers are coming from vertical segments,''
Mondale said. ‘‘Iridium and the gateway providers will increase
distribution focus on those segments.''

Also, the company will direct more of its advertising dollars at these
vertical markets, away from the original target of the international business
traveler.

Mondale said Iridium is taking a more active role in training sales staff and
has developed a new training program for service providers. Previously,
Iridium left sales training efforts to its gateway providers. In particular, the
company wants sales staff with intimate knowledge of the vertical fields
Iridium is targeting so sales staff can better address those requirements.

Toward that end, Mondale said Motorola and Kyocera plan to market the
service more aggressively in areas where they hold sway, such as
Motorola's recent contract extension with the U.S. government.

‘‘In general, they are putting in a substantial effort ... in their own interest
as well as for Iridium,'' he said.

Lower prices

Hand-in-hand with the sales and marketing effort is a move to lower
prices. Although Iridium has long contended its pricing scheme is
misunderstood, analysts and others have attacked the company's pricing
model for being too confusing or expensive—a criticism that seems to
have hit home.

‘‘Perhaps one thing we have not done well is explain what the real pricing
we've got is,'' Mondale said.

Iridium plans to lower the price of wholesale service it provides the various
gateway providers around the world. Those providers, in turn, will lower
their prices to the various retail partner carriers in their respective regions,
which market the system. Iridium hopes to convince retail providers to
lower their prices as well, and not take advantage of higher margins.

‘‘I would say we have an excellent consensus at Iridium and among the
gateway (providers) to go to work on exactly that,'' Mondale said. ‘‘We
intend to bring some order to the retail offering and make sure we have
enough to (provide incentives to) the resellers and sell the service, but we
also have to get it down to the point where the users find in attractive.''
[Yeah, $1.40 breakeven cost is gonna make it almost impossible...]

Cutting costs

Looking to its bottom line, Iridium said it hopes to improve its net loss by
reducing certain expenses in the face of low revenues. Cost-cutting
measures will include cuts in operations and operating expenses,
maintenance and financing costs.

Iridium's new marketing and business plans will be revealed in more detail
as the company renegotiates its financing covenants this month. Iridium has
$260 million of available loan financing until that time.

Management changes

To see these changes through, the company is reshuffling its
upper-management team. Staiano announced his resignation late last
month. His departure marks the most significant indication Iridium is willing
to fully shift gears from a technical focus to a marketing one. Staiano was
largely responsible for the network buildout phase, pushing the company
to meet as close as possible its launch deadline.

However, reports from Iridium indicate Staiano and the Iridium's board of
directors had differences over the company's future strategy. The fact that
the company has stated its intention to target vertical markets instead of
the original international business traveler is perhaps the most immediate
effect of his absence.

Just before Staiano's departure, Chief Financial Office Roy Grant resigned
as well, following news Iridium would have to renegotiate its bank
covenants. Grant was responsible for the original negotiation process.

In the latest shift, Mondale said Iridium would not renew the contract of
Mauro Sentinelli, executive vice president of marketing, expected to leave
by the end of May. He is on personal leave until that time.

‘‘Iridium has never been a one-man show,'' Mondale said. ‘‘We have a
real strong team of employees.

‘‘We are going to need time for these changes put into place to take
effect,'' he continued. ‘‘In global business, there is no silver bullet ...
We've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't work in the
market.''

Tim O'Neil, analyst at SoundView Financial Group Inc., said the changes
Iridium announced are in line with what analysts and Wall Street expects.

‘‘Those are steps that needed to be taken,'' he said, adding Iridium is
making the changes sooner than many had expected.

‘‘They've handed the baton from a technology expert over to a
sales-and-marketing-focused individual,'' he said, referring the shift from
Staiano to Richardson. ‘‘We hope this is a positive trend. The next step is
a permanent selection with a similar if not stronger background in
telecom.''

O'Neil also expressed support for the company's ‘‘continued focus on
reducing expenses and on targeting the low-hanging fruit,'' referring to the
vertical-market focus.

However, O'Neil said he is waiting for the company to begin fully
subsidizing handsets, which Iridium has yet to endorse.

‘‘Give them time, they'll get there,'' he said. ‘‘When they bring on an
individual who understands the wireless industry and understands telecom,
they'll realize that it's imperative that customers come on sooner rather
than later. Subsidies will drive acceptance.

‘‘It'll take them time to realize the heavy usage these vertical markets will
bring,'' he continued. O'Neil said the usage potential for this market is so
high, Iridium eventually will give the handset away for free to get at the
lucrative minutes of use they can provide.
[Hey, I've heard this before, Maurice]

However, others watching Iridium are not as pleased. Several law firms
have filed class-action lawsuits against the company on behalf of investors
who feel Iridium misled them about its achievable subscriber base, handset
production problems and other matters.

Latest Issue




Copyright 1999, all rights reserved.
Please report problems to webmaster.rcr@inlet.com
May 4, 1999
rcrnews.com




To: djane who wrote (4439)5/4/1999 2:59:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 
*Int'l roaming plane standing at the gate

May 3, 1999


By Elizabeth V. Mooney

MIAMI—The market opportunity for international roaming is clear,
present and growing, but domestic carriers so far have been focused on
tapping the large and more immediate potential posed by burgeoning data
traffic at home.

‘‘Many of the U.S. carriers I follow have not spent a lot of time yet
building roaming into their plans,'' Timothy W. O'Neil, a principal of
SoundView Technology Group, a Stamford, Conn., investment bank, said
April 28 at the Wireless Partnering conference.

‘‘This has to do with the theory of hitting the sweet spot where revenues
will skyrocket ... The sweet spot is the bigger convergence of the personal
computer, television and telephony,'' said O'Neil. ‘‘[Wireless carriers] are
focused on domestic issues like rolling out a data product in order to
become ‘infocom' players. They see a much bigger pie to go after.''

Wireless Partnering is the first of an ongoing series of conferences planned
by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and Cibernet
Corp. The meetings are designed to facilitate dialogue among domestic
and foreign carriers about opportunities for and impediments to
international roaming. Cibernet, a wholly owned subsidiary of CTIA, is a
clearinghouse with 200 carrier customers that exchanges roaming
information and provides financial settlements for roaming calls.

‘‘This conference and our trade missions to Latin America and Asia are
for dealing with issues like numbering administration, fraud, general
compatibility of hardware and handsets, data clearinghouses and protocol
conversion for the exchange of billing records, currency issues,'' said
George S. Shaginaw, senior vice president for technology and operations
of CTIA and president of Cibernet.

Within the United States, roaming revenues were about $3.2 billion last
year, or about 10 percent of the total. CTIA's goal is to facilitate the
concept of wireless as a mobile cordless phone that permits international
long-distance landline replacement, Shaginaw said.

‘‘Latin American and Asian operators can't get the attention of U.S.
operators on roaming. This puzzles me, especially with (respect to) some
of the more mature operators in North America,'' said Daniel Ambrosini,
senior manager of carrier operations for Sprint PCS.

‘‘From a PCS perspective, it is important to start expanding into the
international arena to generate more traffic on our network,'' Ambrosini
said. ‘‘We are just starting to focus on international roaming.''

By mid-year, Pegaso PCS S.A. de C.V., which recently launched
commercial service in Tijuana, Mexico, expects to provide its customers
with the opportunity to roam seamlessly on the Sprint PCS network in the
United States, said Alejandro Orvanarios, chief commercial officer.

‘‘Essentially, for the first time, a U.S. and a Mexican customer will feel no
difference when they roam, getting 100-percent digital technology
wherever they go, so we are delivering on [the North American Free
Trade Agreement],'' he said.

Those North American carriers that have so far engaged in roaming
agreements have had their attention focused on Europe, but they now are
starting to look south toward Latin America, said Marienne Cordeiro
Bernades, roaming product manager for BCP Telecomunicacoes. In
commercial operation for a year, the Brazilian B-band carrier has more
than 1 million customers, mostly in the Sao Paulo area. BCP plans to begin
offering international roaming to its Sao Paulo subscribers in May.

Bernades said BCP estimates 1 percent of the wireless customers in the
United States are international roamers.

International roaming today represents less than 5 percent of the revenues
of American wireless carriers, said Michael S. Krier, director of the Latin
America practice for The Strategis Group, Washington, D.C.

Based on consulting projects it has done for clients, Strategis estimates 50
million people will be global roamers in 2003, compared with 32 million in
1998.


Looking at cellular and personal communications services customers and
the number of airline flights they take yearly, Krier said worldwide roaming
revenues that were $9.2 billion in 1998, based on an average airtime rate
of 60 cents per minute, will rise to $11 billion, based on an assumed
average airtime rate of 45 cents per minute. The Strategis model assumes
each of the 50 million global roamers will travel abroad six times per year
on trips averaging four days each, and they will use their wireless phones
an average of 20 minutes daily for international calls.

‘‘Most business travelers go to large cities. If no roaming is in place,
[mobile satellite systems] make sense. If there is (roaming), it makes more
sense to use a cellular phone,'' Krier said.


Availability of phones that operate on multiple radio-frequency standards
is critical to the proliferation of roaming, he said. Ericsson Inc. and Nokia
Corp. are planning soon to introduce their versions of world phones that
can use six different wireless technologies, Krier added.

Nextel Communications Inc., which uses integrated Digital Enhanced
Network technology for its enhanced specialized mobile radio network in
North America, is planning to introduce a Global System for Mobile
communications version ‘‘for the rest of the world in a few months,''
O'Neil said.

Japan's NTT Mobile Communications Inc. has 25 million customers on its
unique Personal Digital Cellular network. For the relatively few customers
willing to pay a premium, it has established a call forwarding process so
they can rent phones using local technologies in their destination cities and
still get calls to their domestic numbers, said Takashi Tokita, executive
director of global business development.

‘‘DoCoMo plans to further simplify roaming through development of
dual-mode handsets compatible with PDC and various other
technologies,'' he said.

For Tokita, the biggest impediment to global roaming isn't so much
incompatible wireless technologies as it is the lack of a ‘‘roaming broker''
to facilitate such agreements among carriers in different countries.

‘‘I don't have a specific organization in mind, but we need to have a
clearinghouse instead of each participating carrier having to negotiate
bilateral agreements individually,'' he said.

‘‘This would be an improvement for the whole industry.''


Latest Issue




Copyright 1999, all rights reserved.
Please report problems to webmaster.rcr@inlet.com
May 4, 1999
rcrnews.com




To: djane who wrote (4439)5/4/1999 3:03:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 

Telecom act could cause trouble for tower companies

May 3, 1999


By Kristen Beckman

The transition of control of cell sites from wireless carriers to independent
tower companies is accelerating, and build-to-suit companies increasingly
are getting the call from carriers to handle the buildout of their networks.

Most industry watchers agree the transition is good for carriers and tower
companies alike. Carriers in an increasingly competitive market get to
make money from their tower assets and focus on their core service
business, while tower companies acquire revenue-generating property.
Even municipalities should benefit from the trend because tower
companies are supposed to foster collocation.

But tower companies may be about to hit a legal speed bump stemming
from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 704 of the act gives
state and local governments authority over decisions regarding the
placement, construction and modifications of personal wireless service
facilities. State and local governments are limited, however, in that they
cannot ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services; and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
the provision of personal wireless services.''

Section 704 defines personal wireless services as ‘‘commercial mobile
services, unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless
exchange access services.'' Wireless service facilities are defined under
the act as ‘‘facilities for the provision of personal wireless services.''

The question becomes whether section 704 applies only to licensed or
unlicensed carriers as specified in the law, or whether the law applies to
the facilities that make wireless service possible.

Some industry watchers question whether tower companies have any
rights under section 704 because they are not licensed carriers and are not
considered public utilities. Some sources indicated litigation has surfaced
dealing with the issue, and courts generally have held that tower companies
can bring action under section 704.

The ultimate answer to the question remains unclear. Several carriers have
successfully used section 704 to get towers sited, but few, if any, tower
companies have tested their rights under section 704 in court.

Some industry experts say tower companies have legal recourse, and
some believe they don't. Others say it depends.

‘‘The siting companies often have a specific wireless client in mind, and
they may well be able to step into the shoes of the carrier,'' said Michael
Altschul, vice president and general counsel for the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association.

In a situation where tower companies are building on spec—or without a
specific wireless carrier tenant in mind—Altschul said tower companies
may have a more difficult time claiming any protection under section 704.

Tower companies also may have a difficult time claiming they have been
discriminated against because the law specifically refers to service
providers in that instance.

Some carriers believe tower companies legally are allowed to perform
certain functions on the carrier's behalf, including litigation. Jeff Battcher, a
spokesman for BellSouth Corp., which recently signed a
purchase-leaseback and build-to-suit agreement with Crown Castle
International Corp., said BellSouth probably would become involved
anyway in the event of a lawsuit.

Several tower companies say they almost always build towers in
partnership with a carrier and rarely build sites on spec.

Jeff Ebihara, vice president of American Tower Corp.'s southeast region,
said the company does most of its zoning in conjunction with a carrier and
so far has not challenged a local zoning commission on its own.

Bill Lovins, vice president of operations for UniSite Inc., said the
company's perspective on 704 is that it doesn't specifically apply only to
carriers, but having a carrier involved in any potential litigation would only
strengthen its case.

The situation may not come up very often, though.

‘‘We have built 171 towers in the last year and have had no litigation,''
said Lovins.

Part of the reason may be that tower companies say they try to be
proactive at working with the communities before problems arise and to
build a good relationship with communities.

‘‘The zoning authorities generally see us as a positive,'' said American
Tower's Ebihara. ‘‘They see us as a way to reduce the total number of
towers.''

But another reason lawsuits may have yet to develop is a lack of
awareness on the part of local zoning commissions that tower companies
may not be covered under section 704.

Ted Krienes of Krienes & Krienes Inc., a consulting firm that represents
cities, counties and regional agencies, firmly believes that section 704 only
applies to Federal Communications Commission licensees or unlicensed
carriers as specified in the law. He said even local multipoint distribution
services carriers would not be covered under the law.

Krienes said his biggest concern is the proliferation of sites that are built on
spec, comparing the situation with ‘‘paper subdivisions,'' in which land is
approved for a particular use and streets are often put in, but then nobody
ever develops the land further.

Tower management companies, however, may have a loophole of their
own. The National Environmental Protection Act applies to all federal
agencies, including the FCC, which then outline regulations. FCC rules
require licensees to perform certain environmental assessments in some
situations.

‘‘Because tower site management companies are not licensees, they are
not subject to the same rules,'' said Andrea Williams, assistant general
counsel at CTIA.

Williams noted other agencies, such as the National Park Service, have
put in place regulations that could apply to tower management companies,
and the FCC has told wireless licensees they must provide an
environmental assessment even if someone else owns the tower on which
they are located.

Community backlash to cell sites still exists, and while local zoning
authorities may not be able to stop many towers from being built, residents
are finding the legal system may provide a remedy. Earlier this year, a jury
in Harris County, Texas, awarded more than $1 million to a couple who
claimed a GTE Wireless tower near their home decreased their property
value and caused them mental anguish. GTE said it plans to appeal the
judgment.

Whether cases like that will spur more litigation on behalf of residents is
unclear, but Ebihara said he believes the work build-to-suit companies are
doing up front will stem much of that type of litigation.

‘‘We're doing a much better job up front with working with
communities,'' said Ebihara. ‘‘The days of trying to sneak a tower in are
long, long gone.''

The idea of build-to-suit, though, works best when only one build-to-suit
company has a site in a particular area. Any more than that and the
benefits of collocation are decreased, and tower companies run the risk of
losing money on their towers for lack of enough tenants.

However, Ebihara said build-to-suit companies have cooperated with
each other to avoid building sites close together. UniSite's Lovins agreed.

‘‘It doesn't benefit us or anyone else to get into a pricing war,'' said
Lovins.

Meanwhile, some disputes between carriers and zoning commissions are
ending up in court, with no clear answers or precedents emerging.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., twice
sided with residents and local officials in denying tower construction in
Virginia Beach, Va., and Winston-Salem, N.C. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston concluded the town of Amherst,
N.H., was within its rights to block Omnipoint Corp. from building four
190-foot towers.

The wireless industry, however, has won favorable rulings in the Oyster
Bay case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit, in New
York City, among others.

While the inconsistencies among the outcomes of these cases could land
the issue at the Supreme Court, some legislators are trying to strengthen
local oversight of antenna siting by making aesthetic and property value
concerns legitimate reasons to deny siting apps.

Latest Issue




Copyright 1999, all rights reserved.
Please report problems to webmaster.rcr@inlet.com
May 4, 1999
rcrnews.com




To: djane who wrote (4439)5/4/1999 3:11:00 AM
From: djane  Respond to of 29987
 
"independent study commissioned by Vodafone plc is seen by cdmaOne players as a smoking gun in favor of their technical parameters" (see below)

May 3, 1999

Carriers hone in on harmonization

By Lynnette Luna

Carriers are keeping quiet about events that transpired during a
third-generation harmonization meeting two weeks ago in Japan, but an
independent study commissioned by Vodafone plc is seen by cdmaOne
players as a smoking gun in favor of their technical parameters.

Major carriers from around the world met in Tokyo for another round of
harmonization talks that honed in on key outstanding technical issues.
Sources indicate carriers did not reach an agreement on harmonization, but
others say the operators have brought to life the agreement reached in the
TransAtlantic Business Dialogue meeting, which calls for an umbrella 3G
standard that encompasses three modes of CDMA-based technology.
Manufacturers were invited to the meeting and were asked to study the
technical parameters at issue in detail.

‘‘The real test of this is how many carriers get behind a common
statement,'' said Craig Farrill, vice president of strategic technology with
AirTouch Communications Inc.

Vodafone and AirTouch—which together will become the largest mobile
phone operator in the world after their merger—say they are pushing hard
for carriers to agree on one chip rate, but it's unlikely carriers will reach a
consensus. The International Telecommunication Union, in charge of
setting 3G standards, has asked for carrier input to reach a CDMA
standard that is as harmonized as possible.

‘‘We want harmonization of the chip rates, and the discussion about what
that should be and how it will come about is still continuing,'' said Tim
Harrabin, strategy director with Vodafone. ‘‘We don't have strong views
on a particular chip rate.''

‘‘We would prefer a single common chip rate globally, for all three modes
in the CDMA specification,'' said Farrill. ‘‘But when the chip rates are
within 5 percent of each other, that is completely adequate and converged
enough to provide economies of scale ... We are making dozens of
technical contributions that explain the benefits of a single rate and
presented our point of view. Getting close enough is good enough. My
European colleagues believe we are close enough and there is no benefit
to getting closer.''

The chip rate is a major area of contention among carriers. European and
North American GSM operators are unwilling to move the chip rate below
3.84 Megachips per second, while existing cdmaOne operators say they
need a rate of 3.68 Mcps to keep their networks backward compatible.
One chip rate, say convergence proponents, will provide the best
economies of scale for operators. But lowering it, say Global System for
Mobile communications proponents, will degrade capacity and efficiency
of the standard.

An independent technical report commissioned by Vodafone in February
has received little attention in past carrier meetings, but indicates the
highest chip rate proposed for W-CDMA technology (4.096 Mcps) was
only around 1.4 percent more spectrally efficient than the lowest chip rate
(3.686 Mcps). Spectral efficiency in the study means the number of
simultaneous users that can be supported per unit of operating bandwidth.

‘‘Therefore we conclude that none of the chip-rate options offers
significant gains over the others in terms of spectral efficiency,'' said the
report commissioned by Dr. Raymond Steele of Multiple Access
Communications Ltd. in the United Kingdom on behalf of Vodafone.

MAC Ltd., a member of the European Telecommunications Industry
Association, describes itself as playing a key role in the RACE II CODIT
project that provided the basis for the W-CDMA proposal. It also has
investigated issues relating to cdmaOne technology. Steele is an author of
numerous studies and books relating to mobile phone technology.
Vodafone said the study does not necessarily reflect the company's view.
MAC Ltd. cautioned that the study was done within a two-week time
period and the results should be interpreted in that context.

The study also concluded that by examining the capacity of a system
based on each chip rate the company studied (4.096 Mcps, 3.84 Mcps
and 3.686 Mcps) in a range of different spectrum allocations, each chip
rate offers a similar capacity. But for specific frequency allocations, one
chip rate will offer a better capacity than the others.

Pilot schemes proposed by the cdma2000 camp provided a greater
spectral efficiency than the approach used by W-CDMA technology, said
MAC Ltd. And synchronized systems advocated by the cdma2000 camp
yields performance improvements compared with asynchronous systems
backed by W-CDMA advocates.

‘‘I'm surprised this study hasn't received more attention because it is
counter to arguments by W-CDMA carriers,'' said Jim Takach, director
of advanced programs with the CDMA Development Group. ‘‘I don't
know that there have been any other independent studies like this ... I
know carriers have been studying these with manufacturers.''

Jim Healy, newly appointed chairman of the GSM Association and
president of Cook Inlet/VoiceStream PCS, pointed out that the study
based capacity calculations on the performance of existing cdmaOne
systems.

‘‘None of us know what the future is going to be, and we don't want to
suppress and give up things that could be useful,'' said Healy. ‘‘It doesn't
make sense to give up capacity ... We're doing a trial in Canada so we
will know the real world trials of what works.''

Farrill said European operators' own analyses on the subject indicate a
4-percent gross channel speed exists with the 3.84 Mcps rate.

‘‘They believe that is material,'' said Farrill. ‘‘They don't want to move it
further down. They can't see a benefit for them for what they consider a
loss of total channel capacity. It doesn't affect the individual user, but it's
the total number of individual users you can carry. That is what they are
concerned about.

‘‘None of these technologies have been rigorously tested,'' continued
Farrill. ‘‘We should pick one, put it in the field, test it and figure out what
works.''

Latest Issue




Copyright 1999, all rights reserved.
Please report problems to webmaster.rcr@inlet.com
May 4, 1999
rcrnews.com




To: djane who wrote (4439)5/4/1999 3:24:00 AM
From: djane  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 29987
 
Phone company hoping to hit jackpot with auction of lucky numbers
[Hey, will I be able to choose my G* phone number?]

Tuesday May 4 1999


ASSOCIATED PRESS
Taiwanese will soon be able to bid for mobile phone
numbers that are considered lucky, a company said.

Dozens of numbers considered especially auspicious
according to traditional beliefs will go on the block this
month, with bidding expected to reach into tens of
thousands of dollars, Chunghwa Telecom said.

Chunghwa has been hoarding the numbers for years in
hopes of cashing in thanks to superstitious customers,
said Lee Yeuh-sha, director of the company's service
department.

She said the company was encouraged by a preliminary
auction last month where NT$80,000 (HK$18,000)
was paid for the number 456789 - representing ever
increasing success in business.

Other auspicious numbers have four nines, four eights,
or four sixes, considered auspicious because they
represent words in the Mandarin and Taiwanese dialects
meaning lasting success, wealth and profit, Ms Lee said.

But not all consumers are simply bent on harnessing
numerology to make a quick buck. Ms Lee said another
sought-after number was 988988 - made up of numbers
whose homonyms are a couplet wishing long life to one's
father.

Chunghwa already allows customers to pick numbers
reflecting birthdays or selected according to numerology
by paying an extra fee, Ms Lee said. The least popular
number was four. Its homonym meant death, Ms Lee
said.

Chunghwa ended its monopoly on mobile services in
December 1997. But the state-owned giant still boasts
2.5 million of a total of four million accounts on the
island.


Copyright ©1999 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved.