SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Technology Stocks | Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Jeff Vayda who wrote (28563)4/18/2012 3:38:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation   of 29070
 
PCSTEL thinks Globalstar is doing just fine, sticking it to customers with yet another damn monthly arpu plan.

People have had enough of the stupid telco "plans".

The share price suggests that the extra $40 a month, and buy a big phone, and pay a 'connection' fee and pay whatever other nasty charges are lurking in the fine print, is NOT turning on hordes of Apple acolytes or Android aficionados. Unsurprisingly, it looks like a fizzer. It's time for Globalstar to stop thinking about bertical people and start thinking about people. Maybe some lying in a hammock, without a vertical market bone in their body, who just want to make an occasional call. Who don't want another stupid monthly bill.

MediaFLO thought a monthly bill would be a good idea too. "Well, the electricity and water supply monopolies do it, so why not us? So do other telcos. So we should too."

Petrol stations don't have monthly "plans". Supermarkets don't sell "plans". Car dealers don't have monthly "plans" though some will arrange financing of the car.

I wonder how far they'll watch the company go down the gurgler before they figure it out and take action. The share price suggests they have NOT hit the jackpot with the arpu plan.

As you say, in India, in 1997, people were paying an arm and a leg to make a phone call from a public phone booth. Now, hordes of them have cellphones and cheap prices. That public phone booth opportunity is rapidly disappearing around the world.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (28564)4/18/2012 8:49:34 PM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation   of 29070
 
Quite right Mq and here is somebody who is sick of monthly arpu plans but would like to buy SPOT: Message 28091229 <I am getting tired of the monthly bills for stuff , adding another like a spot is not high on my list , now if I could write the darn thing off ......... >

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Jeff Vayda who wrote (28563)4/21/2012 1:19:36 PM
From: pcstel   of 29070
 
Thus it seems pretty clear that deployment of new (small, lower cost?) cell sites for capacity enhancement is working very well to accommodate increasing amounts of data traffic, without imposing any significant burden on the wireless operators. Indeed, with the operators apparently able to include on-net WiFi traffic in the data they report to CTIA, as AT&T is probably doing, the need for more licensed spectrum may be reduced even further.”


Simple solutions for those that already possess required spectrum. Unfortunately, for those companies that do not have licensed spectrum. Access to affordable spectrum rights looks increasingly bleek, as the incumbent CMRS providers continue to dominate spectrum auctions.


Mr. Farrar has over the last 3 years, incorrectly in my opinion, claimed that the "spectrum crisis" is a farce, and that there actually is no real threat of insufficient spectral resources.


All the while over 100Mhz of spectrum has been introduced or reintroduced into the market, and quickly consumed by the carriers.


It is easy to claim that there is no "spectrum crisis" as new inventories of spectrum have entered into the marketplace to satisfy the demand. Mr. Farrar would have been correct if the new inventories made available had gone unsold and lain fallow in the marketplace.


So he will play revisionist history and claim he was right, even though substantial amounts of new inventory has entered the market to squelch near term requirements.


The real question is, will there be new inventory of available spectrum to continue to meet the requirements by potential new entrants? If DISH is building a network, will DIRECTV follow?


Low cost equipment and deployment allows operators with access to smaller amounts of Nationwide sepctrum to build competitive networks. If spectral efficiencies double every 2.5 years as claimed, then a operator that held 10Mhz in 1998, would now have the spectral efficiencies of nearly 60Mhz of 1998 spectrum.


Lower cost/high efficiency infrastructure should increase demand for even small amounts of spectral resources by companies wishing to build their own networks.


In the past, high cost of infrastructure was one of the "barriers to entry", along with the requirement of 10's of Mhz of spectrum.


You can claim that the low cost of infrastructure is lowering the demand for spectrum by existing carriers, but you haven't seen the reality of this thesis on the demand side for new spectrum at auction or in the aftermarket.


In this regard, Mr. Farrar continues to claim he is correct about the lack of a spectrum crisis, while the reality of auctions and the resale market continue to prove he is wrong.


PCSTEL

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: pcstel who wrote (28566)4/21/2012 5:05:13 PM
From: Geoff Goodfellow   of 29070
 
the so called "spectrum crisis" is INDEED A GARGANTUAN "MANUFACTURED" FARCE...

it has been going on ever since “The Red Herring fast one” PAC*TEL pulled off shortly after the original A & B band 20 MHz CMRS allocations were deployed in Los Angeles -- on the grounds that the coming Olympics to the area was gonna see one big cellular traffic jam of massive proportions.

PAC*TEL successfully faked out the FCC in to giving them an extra 5 MHz of Totally Unnecessary and Undeserved (and free!) CMRS 850 MHz spectrum (instead of just investing in and developing additional sectorized cell sites)… the same lies and deceptions have been “working well”/promulgated/promulgating ever since.

hats off to the NYT for this timely article broaching this very subject and for the follow-up/on to the NYT article in David S. Isenberg's excellent blog -- where Marty Cooper (and "others" :D) chime/wade/weigh in in the comments section:

Carriers Warn of Crisis in Mobile Spectrum
nytimes.com 

isen.com 

be sure to also read the outstanding Salon article (mentioned in the above isen blog post) on:

The Myth of Interference where Internet architect David Reed explains how bad science created the broadcast industry:
salon.com 

as well as:

Marty Cooper -- the father of the portable cell phone -- on "There is no lack of spectrum, only a lack of spectral efficiency":

The Myth of Spectrum Scarcity:
Why Shuffling Existing Spectrum Among Users Will Not
Solve America’s Wireless Broadband Challenge
Message 26561534

hopefully articles like the this past week's NYT piece and knowledgeable/respected folks like Cooper (recently appointed an FCC advisor, btw) along with Isen, Reed and others In The Know can finally get The Facts/Truth out to educate/enlighten Our ignorant/naive journalists, FCC decision makers, members of congress and other responsible parties. it’s High Time an end was put to this shameful “Spectrum Crisis” SHAM.

geoff

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Geoff Goodfellow who wrote (28567)4/21/2012 6:26:20 PM
From: pcstel   of 29070
 
From your own NYT article....

"But is there really a crisis? Some scientists and engineers say the companies are playing a game that is more about protecting their businesses from competitors."




Yes, from the perspective of the established natiowide CMRS providers. There is not really a spectrum crisis. But, for regional competitors and potential future competitors. The Spectrum Crisis is real.

Companies like LEAP Wireless claim one of their risks is:

"our ability to acquire additional spectrum in the future at a reasonable cost or on a timely basis".


The four nationwide carriers claim a "spectrum crisis" to promote their ability to control domestic spectrum distribution. In 2003, the FCC removed spectrum caps allowing the major CMRS providers to hoard spectrum.

But, make no mistake about it. For companies like LEAP, METRO, etc. The spectrum crisis is real, as their future visibility to enter major markets is extremely limited due to financial power of the established CMRS providers.

The FCC attempted to circumvent the process with Lightsquared, without fully understanding the technical challenges. Falcone took an "opportunists" approach, but the FCC's treatment of Open Range and Globalstar only highlighted the amount of favorable bias the FCC was providing Lightsquared. The Express Waiver treatment really called highlighted attention to the waiver process and ultimately led to questions being asked about Lightsquared political ties which led to its undoing.

PCSTEL

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Michael Grant4/23/2012 10:25:36 AM
2 Recommendations   of 29070
 
First, hello, this is my first message on this board. I was invited here by Geoff, who is an old friend of mine.

I've been interested in satellite stuff for many years. I love understanding how all this stuff works. I've been doing some poking around to understand more about how Globalstar works at a technical level.

Globalstar is a "bent pipe" service. All the smarts are on the ground. The satellites effectively act as a mirror in the sky for a set of frequencies. I was surprised to learn that the bandwidth is a mere 16.5mhz which is shared by all the users.

The maximum bandwidth a user can get is 256Kbps according to the most recent 10K report. That's not exactly broadband.

Does anyone know how this compares with other satellite services? I thought the geo stationary services offered much much more possible bandwidth.

Is the 16.5mhz band divided into channels?

Michael Grant

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Michael Grant who wrote (28569)4/23/2012 4:38:33 PM
From: Geoff Goodfellow   of 29070
 
welcome mgrant:

lots of Good Stuff/Background/History[some of it "ancient" -- but still accurate -- and may seem more like a "grave yard" tour/visit to the MSS mausoleum on all the past "deaths", "stillborns" and "miscarriages" in This Fine "Industry" -- but still relevant with respect to questions you specifically ask at:

Lloyd's satellite constellations
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/constellations/
and
personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk 

Highly Recommended would be to read each extant co's most recent 10-K (and perhaps their S-1's which pretty much means GSAT and IRDM at this stage) as well as all the back postings at orbitrax.com  from its inception in March 2010 to the present day.

any others suggestions/thoughts -- PBS/Mq/anyone else -- for the newly joined here?

Most Hopefully we will be seeing Many More of Your Kind join in with us (as shareholders and customers) here in the days forthcoming.. this is Certainly NOT an "ol' boys club" and some New Blood on this forum would be Most Encouraged AND Welcomed!

geoff
(trolling "here" since march 1999 :D)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Michael Grant who wrote (28569)4/23/2012 5:33:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn2 Recommendations   of 29070
 
Welcome Michael. By not arriving until now you have saved yourself 16 years of 28,569 posts and turbulence. Perhaps your timing is auspicious and you are just in time for the final arrival of Globalstar as the world's biggest Cyberspace communications network.

Iridium orbits at a lower level, though for now they have more coverage, so their total volume of network is bigger than Globalstar's [I guess]. But as the constellation fills and more gateways are added and oceanic coverage becomes more extensive, Globalstar should be the biggest.

We still require a pricing paradigm shift in thinking by the marketers. Unfortunately, it's a fundamental mental shift in philosophical foundations, not a mere tweaking of a price elasticity curve, so I shall not be holding my breath. We are fortunate to have a canary in the coal mine right here in the form of PCSTEL who loves the Dearly Beloved's pricing policy and fancies the $40 a month arpu plan as a beauty.

We have not seen on the news any reports of queues around the block to buy Globalstar DeVices at $40 a month so I suspect we are "On Plan" in the same way that Bernie Schwartz was "On Plan" in Y2K.

The Arpu Plan is almost certainly not turning out to be selling like hot cakes or the share price would not be sliding down.

I don't know what the various satellite systems offer for data flow rates, but the geostationary systems offer much higher speeds for fixed internet. They are expensive at something like 5c per megabyte for farmside.co.nz  for example. O3B [other 3 billion] must be coming along [haven't checked recently] and would cut that price. o3bnetworks.com  <O3b's satellites will be placed in orbit 8.063 kilometers from the earth providing around 70% of the world's population with fiber quality internet connectivity. > 7 times as high as Globalstar - that will be similar in volume to Globalstar even though it's equatorial only.

Globalstar certainly needs to get on with it and forget the $40 Arpu Plan as the main marketing method. Paradigm shift has to happen. When PCSTEL finally flips, we'll know we are heading for success.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (28571)4/25/2012 1:22:44 PM
From: Michael Grant1 Recommendation   of 29070
 
Well I wouldn't exactly say I've missed 16 years...

On the pricing, I'm personally a cheapskate. If I could have nearly/virtually unlimited high speed internet/phone the size of an android/iphone that was satellite enabled, sure, in a heartbeat I'd do it! I know that's not technically possible, at least, not today, maybe in the bright and glorious future.

These sat phones, though getting smaller, are still the sort of thing I consider needed for a special situation or special purpose. It would seem for most people this has to be more or less the case. That means they're already paying a monthly fee for a terrestrial based mobile and a sat phone is something used only in special situations. I'm am having a conceptual problem seeing people flock to an unlimited plan in droves. It would be nice if they had a plan with nearly no monthly cost to maintain the number and a reasonable per minute charge on a pre-pay. That's the sort of thing I'd add to my hiking kit to be used in emergency.

On the geostationary stuff, I've seen some amazing things people are putting on boats. It seems you can now get a gyro-stabilized 50kg 60cm VSAT for a boat for a few thousand $. Most of the major cruise ships out there have on-board satellite internet and even at fairly rough seas, it seems to work just fine (aside from the latency). And as you say, these other systems are offering significant higher bandwidths.

It's the bandwidth question that leads me to ask more about the technical details. Unsurprisingly, this seems played down in all technical papers I can find on Globalstar (and other systems like Iridium as well).

I was really surprised to see such paltry bandwidth allotted to systems like Globalstar and Iridium. Almost makes me wonder what's going on if there's some technical reason why these things can't be wider band. Is there really such a dearth of usable bandwidth up in the ghz region?


Secondly, there's got to be a significant market out there for boats. I wonder why Globalstar hasn't tried to cover more of water. Shouldn't there be less bureaucracy to deal with over water versus land?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Michael Grant who wrote (28572)4/25/2012 2:06:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn2 Recommendations   of 29070
 
< It would be nice if they had a plan with nearly no monthly cost to maintain the number and a reasonable per minute charge on a pre-pay. That's the sort of thing I'd add to my hiking kit to be used in emergency.>


The monthly cost is a major disincentive. Reducing barriers to entry and use is required to get people buying Globalstar and using it. I don't see any need for a monthly charge. There is no regular cost in a phone remaining enabled. If a phone is switched on and a call is made, that's when delivery and termination costs are incurred.


The way to charge is for customers to prepay for data, then have the data deducted from their credit as they use it. If they don't use it, they don't lose it. It's quite surprising that well into the 21st century, Globalstar is continuing with the 20th century methods [or maybe even 19th century - write out a monthly invoice, post it to the customer, wait for payment a month later, go and see them if they haven't paid the bill].

While the system is underused, the megabytes should be very cheap. Cheaper than terrestrial services. Very cheap means under 5c a minute, not $1 a minute or $3 a minute. And the minutes/megabytes should be billed by the second/byte, not by the minute. Then there won't be phone calls about dropped calls - just redial and continue using the data allowance.

That would get droves of people flocking. Millions.

The reason Globalstar didn't cover oceans is that the gateways were $15 million and there was no good back-haul. Failing to get subscribers was a problem too. Nobody wanted to build gateways, such as in New Zealand, when the gateway would cost $15 million an the minutes were priced at a huge price, sold in a bundle, with monthly costs. I offered to buy a gateway for NZ but Globalstar was totally unreasonable about their ongoing charges even though they had no customers at all.

Regarding the amount of spectrum Globalstar was allocated, it was free spectrum, so governments were not going to give a huge amount to them. Globalstar couldn't figure out how to use the amount they did get, so there would have been no use giving them more. They still can't figure out how to use it other than hoping for a windfall with Ancillary Terrestrial Component sales, which terrestrial competitors object to [having paid for spectrum themselves, that's not surprising].

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.