On Oct 12, 11:19 am, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
I quoted 2007 purchasing power parity of India, China, US and Russia
as an estimate of what might be spent on a global telecom system for a
reason - it is the best estimate of how much purchasing power people
in different nations have when buying the same thing.

All your commentary and talk in an effort to undermine what I've said,
reflects your total and abject lack of knowledge on the subject.

I'm going to try this one more time, then you can keep your
misconceptions.

Imagine some guy in China who brings home $3,000/year, which is
$250/month, measured with PPP. Imagine that he decides he can set aside 1%
of his monthly income to pay for your magical satellite internet. Does
that mean you get $2.50/month from this guy?

NO.

You get vastly less, because there's no way for you to get your hands on
PPP-equivalent money.

Depends on the details. If you're building ground stations, handsets
and displays in China for your system you can get many times the PPP
values given the differences in currency values and average work
hours.

You have to go through the exchange rate. So that
while this guy who's really only making $100/month is considerably better
off than that number indicates, when it comes to paying *you*, we go back
to exchange rates.

To put it more clearly: when deciding how many donuts and DVDs he can buy,
$250 is the right number. When deciding how much money he can give you to
support your operations, $100 is the right number.

If you're foolish enough to have your system built in the US sure.
If you're smart enough to have your ground based components to be made
in China you can offer up to a certain volume at PPP or better.

Your long and detailed explanation of this only makes it funnier that
you're still getting it completely backwards.

No, you are not looking at the entire picture.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software