Interesting, but it seems youknowitoo found the most specific idea so far to fit the actual documents. By the way, I can't actually take credit for a find on this one - you can sign up for email alerts about SEC filings at the Globalstar website to get automatic notifications. I try to automate as much as I can and then try to figure out what the H it means sometimes. We've really got a pretty good group of people working together here - so amazing the ideas that grow out of this, thanks for the input. If Ergen is up to anything there's a good chance one of us will 'Spot' him.
Your answer seems the most specific, like a laser beam. I do sort of wonder why these very limited redactions have to be carried out for such a long period of time, perhaps trade secrets in the designs etc. there? Let's hope to hear from AMV for more interpretation. As for a hold on these agreements, I could imagine the NPRM could have been a determinant of how each wanted to be paid as much as a GSAT decision to move ahead. The base stations pretty much needed to be upgraded no matter what, if I understand that correctly, so starting that work may not have been in question so much as the other details. Nice endorsement that Hughes wanted shares more than cash.
Around the 14th to the 15th we were discussing a news story that T-Mobile was making a spectrum deal and another possible topic of discussion was observation of New Holders coming on with investments. Ranking one or the other of those events as having a connection until something else is found by anyone.
What do you suppose we are missing for information? What would they be doing that they have to file a notice but request it remains confidential? (DOD? Is that too easy a guess or is it some agreement.) Anyone up to speed on what qualifies to be granted CT. Whatever it was, it dates to November 14th.
October 25th you posted something different, said you had plans:
"I already have a very good Attorney out of SF up to speed now and have the $ for a fight if it comes." Either you have or you have not - which is it?
Remember King Lear, and don't be in too big a hurry to feather the nest for your kids - be responsible but not dotting, because you will receive scant thanks or gratitude in your lifetime anyway. I went against King Lear and doled out better than 65% of an inheritance I received, only to experience a twist of fate where I came up a bit tight on my retirement and realized that my kids had splurged away what they had received. Hard knocks are better teachers than good intentions as far as kids go - and when you are dead that's when your children probably first really come to appreciate the benefits of the normal sacrifices a parent makes for the next generation. At the present time, if a serious emergency were to arise, I could not be the rock that could shelter anyone, and it would have been better if I had preserved the resources against the day. Being a good dad doesn't mean you can purchase the feeling for yourself, it's more of something you will be better advised to leave behind while you prepare go to your grave for your reward. I should have listened to my own dad more closely and studied Shakespeare more astutely.
GSAT provided an in depth reply for sure, supported with technical facts and very informed remarks by respected members of the investment community. I did note that the Iridium request was made some time ago so some of their remarks were out paced by the passage of time, such as the successful launch of GSAT's second generation satellites obliterating any such claims about GSAT's position in the MSS market.
If you need a match to burn your old valuation models I could lend you some coals from my daily chart bonfires. Estimate - GSAT valuation sufficient to reach your retirement objectives!
You asked an almost identical question before as the devil's advocate and received some suggestions how TLPS can be used by other than the government - value added circumstances. Total security - don't count on that in the modern world, but superior security probably, even for individuals.
Imagine business managers would pay for fast above average secure connections - although TLPS will not be the only source of that for enterprises, it would be in the running.
50/50 chance the FCC won't go along with this plan to transfer the current useful spectrum, and I wish I knew where to send comments to the FCC on that 'plan' and tell them how share holders are willing to wait to see that spectrum pay off, so why is the company is such a rush to leave - it should be obvious that taking the spectrum under these conditions is not in the public interest. The spectrum should be valued, sold, and the proceeds split rather than just put in some lawyers black bag. Also the judge might not endorse all of that CYA wording in the new document. Lawyers sure know how to turn out the paper work, and of course they will have to be paid some more for that.
Opps, it was started by codesilver. zqwertas also has some postings that may be buried deeper in the pile of previous mentions of Oceus and the DOD.
I've tried twice today to bump up the gulleywasher thread entitled "Oceus Networks" which is packed with good information. It happens now and then that Yahoo has some sort of (should we call it) censor. Others have said also today that they have been unable to post source information. So just search the board for "Oceus Networks" so some great information.
Maybe Doug Smith, CEO of Oceus, gave us some clues yesterday during his interview with Executive Biz :- that the testing of GSAT spectrum for the DOD went well. Article search:
""Doug Smith, Oceus Networks CEO, on Mobile Device Security and Broadband Tech Advances", -----
Very informative reading between the lines.
Doug Smith sort of lets a cat out of the bag where he refers to a story he read about a company testing down in New Mexico (lol, I think he was referring to his own company) that had good results.
Is there a connection between this story released yesterday and some update coming on Dec. 12th?
Broadband Internet Bootcamp
and FCC Policy Update
Thursday, December 12, 7 pm
First noticed by lakenonapatriot.
During the morning that same day the FCC is holding it's monthly meeting in Washington.
Full story at Executive Biz website. Search headline: "Doug Smith, Oceus Networks CEO, on Mobile Device Security and Broadband Tech Advances"
The last two paragraphs seem to have the most relevance to GSAT spectrum.
December 3, 2013 -
Doug Smith: We’re in generation three of our tactical networks capabilities. Those capabilities in the public safety space are generally called deployables. Deployables is a fairly simplistic term for what we do for the DOD. In essence, it’s providing broadband capacity and coverage when and where you need it, in any environment, and doing it in a secure, end‑to‑end networking solution that is compliant to standards so that many different devices and applications can be used.
On the public safety side, the FCC asked us to do a revolutionary trial, to put an LTE network up at 70,000 feet and see how it performed. We had performance out to 100 kilometers radius, so 200 kilometer bubbles of coverage from putting our system up at 70,000 feet over Denver. It was quite an interesting trial and a fun story as well.
The day of the trial, it happened to be national UFO day and all sorts of reports were coming in across Denver about UFOs over the area. It was on the news programs up there, so we had a little bit of fun with it, as well. It took four balloons to pull the 60‑pound payload up to 70,000 feet and it was quite a spectacle. The system performed well and the results will be filed with the FCC.
I recently read an article about a company down in New Mexico that is working with the DOD and some of the intelligence agencies on a several week duration ISR platform that would be at 65‑, 70,000 feet, and of course, we’ve seen some of the big integrators talk about lighter‑than‑air vehicles that would operate at those same types of altitudes for the DOD.
So, in this case, doing the DACA trial with the FCC pairs nicely with what we’re doing for the DOD. Putting a persistent ISR layer up at 60‑, 70,000 feet above the weather provides added capabilities to what satellites can offer. Much more capacity and capability can be offered on these high altitude platforms, and I think the DOD will be well served by this capability."
The concept of competition isn't intended to be twisted into a circumstance where anyone ends up being 'screwed' in terms of providing services, in theory nor as in practice. I don't see Wheeler ever siding with any part of the market 'sponging' off of any other part of the market - as a goal, nor would he allow that arrangement. He says he will protect competition (incumbents) and at the same time create competition if incumbents refuse or fail to deliver services to the people. His concept is quite sophisticated and aimed at promoting the 'general welfare' ( in the definition of what the common wealth meant when the U.S. constitution was created). Remember Wheeler has written books on history and has a deep interest in applying those principles to his current position at the FCC. He has also run businesses, done start-ups, and studied where competition has shown limitations. It's important not to paint over the meaning of his statements with too much self interest, lest we demean that he may sincerely have his focus on the "public interest."
Wheeler should be taken very seriously at his word for the time being, IMO. A man of character does not appear that often in a lifetime especially in government, and we may be seeing one now, in addition to what some of us think we've seen in Jay Monroe in business. This is a rarity.