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: Maurice Winn who wrote (4707)	5/19/1999 10:00:00 AM
From: CommSatMan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29987

I have been reading and researching what I could about the marketing plans of both Iridium and Globalstar and if you don't want some controversial opinions, just stop reading here. If you go back about nine months ago at one of Iridium's board meetings, they pulled out a phone and had very successful telephone calls. G* just did the same thing recently at their board meeting. I am a technologist and I love the technology, but I am convinced that the differences in technology did not break Iridium and will not make G. However, if you look at their marketing plans, there are some striking similiarities that make me believe G will have a rocky start also. IMHO the focus is wrong and the expectations that are being set lead to failure. That is what happened to Iridium and I see it happening to G. To think that this is a "Field of Dreams" where you build it and they will come is a big mistake. Secondly, to compare these satellite systems in any way to a terrestrial cellular system is also an error. To make my point, I offer this comparison. Think back to when terrestrial cellular was first introduced. The phones were big and clunky, the service was spotty, there were lots of dropped calls and they didn't work inside buildings very well. Can you imagine a marketing strategy that compared cellular to land line phones. No, it didn't happen. Cell phones were originally touted as car phones, with external antennas that provided an extra measure of mobility. They replaced CB radios and a lot of two-way systems. At the time, nobody thought or even conceived of a cell phone replacing a land line or even being used when a land line was available. Cell phones progressed as the technology improved until we have excellent service in most populated areas. Satellite phones are in the same position as cell phones of those early days. The handsets are clunky, the drops are higher, the service isn't as perfect and they don't work inside buildings. To think that satellite phones will provide a seamless interaction with terrestrial cellular is not realistic. Iridium went down this path and I see G headed in the same direction. The expectations will not be met and people will be disappointed. OK, here's where I think the marketing should head. When you compare your product to what is existing, pick something that you are superior to, not inferior. Both G* and Iridium should compare their satellite phones to those of today. These are suitcase size products that cost over $25,000 and run a few dollars a minute. Go after that market first and establish a base. Expand in to the other areas after you have your base. Iridium could have attacked this base a year ago and so could G. It doesn't look to me that either has pursued this market. Second is distribution. Iridium depended on others to distribute their handsets and while Kyocera had major problems developing a product that worked, I don't think that would have mattered that much. G is also depending on others. Now I know that setting up distribution channels is not easy and I am not adovocating a completely separate distribution channel, but I am suggesting a more active involvement in the distribution process. OK, I hope that I have created some controversy. The bottom line is that I see G* heading for a rocky start and while I am sure that it will recover, I see financial problems similar to Iridium's, albeit not as severe. CSM

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (4707)	5/19/1999 11:18:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Maurice, Valueman was the first I saw (in the last 1000 or so posts) to point out the problem with lack of handsets. And they are the problem with your scenario of low prices. Yes, it would be great to fill up the time. But, that can't be done at any price until there is something to fill up the time with. No handsets, no minutes. Not enough handsets, not enough minutes. People aren't going to pass around the limited number of handsets to make sure the minutes get filled up, no matter what the price. You are right that the SP's interests are fairly closely aligned with G's. In addition to your reasoning, there is the discount for volume they will receive. They make more money per minute the more minutes they use. And a question: Someone a couple of days ago stated that the gateway providers' reliance on the local terrestrial network would make their call quality be as bad as the weakest link. (If you're trying to call from Mexico, your call will sound like it's coming from Mexico). I don't think this is quite accurate, but need confirmation. The local gateways will be switched directly into the international trunk lines, for international calls, won't they? So, international calls from the foreign country would be dependent on the quality of the international line from the gateway's country. And that's a lot different from relying on local telephone lines within that country. (Of course, the terrestrial line receiving the call will still be dependent on its local line quality, but this is a variable for all the providers). Do you agree? Best, John