On Oct 10, 5:14 am, American wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:24 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:





skreiv:

What nonsense. Just because someone already subscribes doesn't mean
they won't subscribe from you.

True. But it means they'll only subscribe from you if your offering is
significantly better and/or cheaper. The infrastructure they use today
is -already- paid for, marginal cost here of keep using it is very low.

My neighbourhood (~300 houses) recently installed a fiberoptic network.
Cost us aproximately $150K, or ~$500/house if you will, which we got
sponsored from a communication-company by promising to buy service from
them for atleast a year. (since they where competitive anyway, it is
essentially free from our POV)

The network is there though. It's ours, and the operating-costs for
using it the next 20 years is, essentially, nil. We'd need to buy
internet-access from somebody. But that's something for which the price
is already falling like brick of lead. Yeah, we -migth- buy it from you
if your price is cheaper than the competition. Which mean, currently,
less than about $1000/month for 100mpbs symetrical. (but -wont- mean
that targetprice or performance 3, 5 or 10 years from now.....)

So, you can get $3/house from us monthly. Works out to aproximately
$1/person.

How, exactly, are you going to get subscribers for your 50 billion cells
when you used sold us -one- cell, and we're 500 people ? We're among the
best-paying 1% of humans worldwide too.

Only 1.5 billion people have routine access to the internet today and
only 3.0 billion have telephone service. There are nearly 7 billion
people in the world. So, the market is huge.

The market is limited to those who can afford electricty, a computer, a
satelite-modem, -AND- your subscription fee. Unless your satelites are
also magically going to provide electrical power and free computers to
everyone. (which they'll then pay back to you trough the $1/year fee!)

So, by charging $1 per channel per month, you'd make a helluva return
on investment!! And $1 per channel per month would be the high end.
The low end might be $1 per channel per year - and you'd get nearly
total coverage of the market. In this way you'd capture the $90
billion or so per year in telecommunications services.

That market is only $90 billion because rich people pay a lot more than
$1/month or $1/year. The top 10% of users spend the majority of that
money. If you reduce the prices they pay, you shrink the market.

Eivind

The market is already shrunk tight enough! Now it's up to the
providers to explore a more lucrative form of communication
that would expand the market LATERALLY - beyond just
*paid for* electricity, modem, and satelite subscription - THOSE are
just the "children technologies" of mass media.

Now ask yourself this: What would happen if there suddenly
became a source of "portable free energy" that wasn't dependent upon
being attached to the grid? Add to this "scenario" the opportunity for
cheap earth-to-orbit technology and you've suddenly got spectacularly
cheap satelite service.

What then becomes of the important technology? Wasn't it related to
space exploration in the first place? Let me just say there is more
than one way to "tighten" the communications market - one is to, as
you said, reducing the prices that people pay, and the other is to
"loosen" the lateral market enough in order to create newer
hierarchies within the technology. It may be possible then that every
Bolshevik or practicing neocon has an I-phone in his shirt pocket, but
this won't be possible until the market expands beyond L-1.

American- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A $40 billion satellite networkthat provided 50 billion broadband
wireless channels to existing wireless hardware and has a $100 million
recurring cost, would provide basic services to existing providers at
such a cost that they would jump onto the systemd so fast. And you
could also steal some customers from those providers with slight
reduction in costs and improvements in service. And you could bring
more customers into service at today's prices or slightly below todays
prices. All this would gen up $35 billion a year and consume
something like 2 billion of your channels.

Now, you're in a position to win a price war and expand your income
to about $120 billion per year - and increase participation in the
market to about twice as many subscribers as you had in the market
before the system was created.