Replies to post #54710 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[Japbrat]

Ciudad Juarez, State of Chihuahua, just accross the border from San Antonio, Texas, is where I believe the network is being rolled out (public phone licence only - I think we heard of this before, when discussing why GTEM was having to provide I don't know how many phone booths in a city in return for a permit), and it also looks like GTEM is going SOLO at it, although I cannot confirm that either PVN or Marcatel are completely out of it at this moment. It is also NorthWEST of Mexico City, as in the Northeast there are only 2 or 3 major cities (Matamorros and Tampico, the rest are mostly towns before you fall off into the Gulf - IMO Can't even get their PRs right!!). It also appears that GTEM's Mexican Lawyer and 1% owner of GTEM's Mexican outfit is (My educated guess, FWIW):

Mr. Juan Carlos Orrantia Salazar
Globetel, S.A. de C.V.

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: none listed
Address:
Av. De la Raza N° 5020-4,
Colonia Villa del Norte,
C.P. 32360,
Cd. Juárez, Chih.

There are two more Cos. in Mexico with very similar names, but I believe one is related to the Burnaby, Canada outfit and the other one is unrelated, as follows:

Global Communications Network de México, S.A. de C.V. Richard K., Lorden B.
52777784
Tamaulipas N° 150-1702,
Colonia Hipódromo Condesa, C.P. 06140,
México, D.F.

and

Global Telecomunicaciones, S.A. de C.V.
Oscar Fernando Castillo Villanueva y/o Gustavo Eduardo Castillo Sahagún
(43) 140316/158549
Batalla de la Angostura N° 457-6,
Colonia Chapultepec Sur, C.P. 58260,
Morelia, Michoacán

I am currently at work and do not at this moment have time to dig any deeper, but for those who wish to do so, please visit the following sites:

http://www.cft.gob.mx/wb2/COFETEL/COFE_Concesionarios_permisionarios_y_reg

This page lists all the telecom concessionaires, permit holders and registrations in all of Mexico, as per COFETEL

http://www.cft.gob.mx/wb2/COFETEL/COFE_Permisionarios_Permisionario_del_servicio_d

And the above site is where all 3 cos I mentioned above can be found.

If GTEM is also registered to be a ISP in Mexico it should be listed under "Padrón de ISPs Vigentes por Estado" on the COFETEL site. However, for some odd reason, I cannot open that page at this moment.

JapBrat

[siriuslyricher]

Exactly, Nils. These posters who suggest GTEM is going solo on this pilot are grasping at straws. VPN paid GTEM $450,000 to do this exact pilot. As noted at the last shm, no longer would GTEM do these pilots without money up front first from interested parties. Not to mention that GTEM doesn't have the money to spend on engineers, travel, hardware, marketing, customer support, testing, monitoring, etc. required for such testing. And, as some saner types have pointed out, licenses to use these frequencies had to be obtained from the Mexican government and they don't just hand them out to anyone.

Some of you never cease to amaze. For weeks many (shareholders and non-shareholders alike) have been clamoring on this board non-stop, 24/7, for an update from the new management, the more rabid suggesting that the lack of information demonstrated that the new management was no better than the old, the company was falling apart, a scam, a shell, going bankrupt, etc. Now, the company obliges with what appears to be very good news about one of the most important ongoing initiatives of the company, and you pick it apart, the usual naysayers (most of whom admit being non-shareholders, begging the question of why they park themselves on a .28 cent share company stock message board) saying it means nothing, it means GTEM is going it alone, it's just fluff, it's a diversion, blah, blah, blah.

My favorite is the suggestion that GTEM should have waited to release news until they had a contract in hand, and why didn't they wait, etc. Maybe because they just finished this one-month customer rollout 10 days ago and the contract is not finalized, but the shareholders have been screaming for an update non-stop? Maybe because they wanted to, as mentioned when new management took over, keep the shareholders informed?

My second favorite is the suggestion that because the city wasn't named, it's some big mystery and GTEM must be hiding something, it's really a small project, etc. Unbelievable. As others have noted, there are myriad reasons to not divulge the city: non-disclosure agreements, the partner will want to announce the new program in a marketing blitz, the contract is not finalized, and most likely they don't want to be harrassed by some of the very people currently harrassing the company.

Get over it. It's good news. Now pick away and rip this post apart for a few hours.