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 : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocket Scientist who wrote (4546)	5/11/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

ICO cost [construction cost] per minute is higher than Globalstar. Their voice delay is significant. Their transmit distance is huge compared with GSTRF so power consumption will be higher. They don't have multipath CDMA by Q! so connection will be tenuous. They won't have the handset technology pathways that Q! will provide to Globalstar [future handsets will be amazing little wizards]. They are later to market [by a year or more]. ICO is a government department [more or less]. They don't have Q! voice compression technology. They don't have Q! encryption technology available. No handset position location [maybe they will, but not so good or quick as Globalstar - guessing on that one]. They won't have technology upgrades available - the satellites will last too long. Globalstar will upgrade gateways on the ground and renew the constellation in a couple of years. They won't have so many customers so won't have the range of subscriber products available that Globalstar will. They will stay stuck at 10,000 while Globalstar's next constellations can be much lower in altitude with improved links, power control, battery life, less interference = more capacity. [I might have some technical glitch in their, but something like that]. Globalstar will cut the price, leaving them with little profit which means poor marketing for ICO. BUT, ICO will have much wider coverage than Globalstar initially. They'll cover Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha and other out of the way places. Not that those places will fund such a huge project. Those places can use GEO systems at very, very low per minute prices. So can all the yachts sailing the Pacific. There are many high altitude telephone services. They are cheap, but cumbersome. If people want quality, they'll go to Globalstar. Or maybe Iridium. I agree that there will be more than one telephone option for people everywhere, but that doesn't mean that any old service which thinks of going into business will earn a return on their money. People can, without being on a fibre or other ground link, use terrestrial wireless [up to 100 km distance or maybe it was 200 km tested with cdmaOne in Australia with high towers]. They can use GEOs, Iridium, Globalstar, Whatsitsname, Ham Radio, Other Long Wave, Morse code, Internet [GEOs]. Sure, there will be many successful businesses, I just don't think ICO will be one of them. Neither do I think Iridium will be one. GEOs will make heaps of money. Globalstar will have the niche market of mobile subscribers who will pay a bit more for the quality of the call, security, functionality. Those who want cheap will go to GEO and say "over" during their conversation. Maybe the balloons, photovoltaic planes or other inventions will get a piece of the action too. Globalstar also has the soft handoff. Why should anyone buy an ICO handset? Why invest in ICO? There has to be some competitive advantage for them to try it out. Full coverage is one [though Globalstar will have full coverage in perhaps 3 years]. Maurice PS: Some of the above might be wrong. AMA, please find the deliberate errors. djane, I was pleased to beat you on the rain in the nose cone delaying the USA launch schedule.