A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moon Laws



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 10th 07, 09:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Eivind Kjorstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Moon Laws

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

  #42  
Old October 10th 07, 10:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Moon Laws

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

  #43  
Old October 10th 07, 12:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 9, 11:54 pm, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
It's because they're dirt poor!


haha..idiot


Can you quantify that with real data? No because if you'd look at
real data before spouting ill informed opinions you wouldn't look like
such a jackass.


Here look here;


http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006...nts/index2.htm


Fact is the two most populous nations on Earth, China and India have
the strongest growth and relatively high income with inferior telecom
infrastructure that is highly regulated.


China 1,322 million people $7,800 per capita 11.1% growth
India 1,130 million people $3,800 per capita 9.4% growth


It sure is convenient to cook two entire nations down to three numbers
each, but it's wrong.


First of all,I didn't cook the entire nation down to three numbers, I
extracted the relative numbers to determine what they can afford to
purchase.

First of all, those numbers are purchasing power parity.


Yes, its why I quoted them. If gives us an idea of what they can
afford to spend.

While this gives
a good idea for a person's relative wealth in terms of what they can buy
compared to what you can buy,


It gives us an idea of how much money they have to spend.

it is totally wrong when they're buying
services from you directly,


Bull****, there's a little thing called exchange rates - they're taken
into account..

because they have to pay you in currency you
can use.


Bull****, you obviously do not understand that the figures I've quoted
take exchange rates into account. There's this thing called the
international market? Yeah, things get bought and sold all the time
between nations. You make it sound like a big ass deal. Its not.

The nomimal per capita GDP of China was $2,001 in 2006, and that
of India in 2004 was only $797.


The numbers I gave are for 2007 and they took exchange rates into
account. I don't know how you cooked up the numbers you did.
..
And the only reason they're that high (high!) are because the demographics
are extremely uneven. In China you have a comparatively small segment of
urban city-dwellers with incomes which compare much more favorably to US
incomes which drag the average up, followed by an unimaginably enormous
rural population which is, in fact, dirt poor.


You said this before but you lack any evidence to support it. Is it
your intention to repeat a lie until its told so many times it becomes
truth? haha.. Reality is what reality is, and the reality is that
India and China earn lots of money exporting stuff all over the
world,and there are a large number of people there who would jump at
the chance to have a wireless phone or internet connection at $1 per
month or $1 per year. Recall $1 per channel year and I'm making 125%
of my installation cost each year.

Now you're saying that because the actual data I cited is cited as an
average, there are those that are rich and those that are poor
relative to that average and so they're all dirt poor. Well, i agree
that a segment of the Chinese population is dirt poor I agree that a
segment of the Indian population is dirt poor. And I will add that a
segment of the US population is dirt poor. But that doesn't change
the averages, and it does mean that you were wrong when you said that
I'd only be able to sell 0.01% of the EXISTING market for wireless
services.

In fact you hae been uniformly wrong on nearly every point you've
raised. That doesn't seem to stop you or change your mind or alter you
attacks on me one iota. so, I must conclude I'm dealing with a
flaming asshole! Are you a flaming asshole? You sure as hell act
like it.

By no coincidence, the city
dwellers also have access to a fine telecommunications infrastructure.


Have you ever been to the Western frontier in China? Used the phone
services there? Tried to use a cell phone? As usual you're talking
out of your ass.

You are also talking out of your ass with your presumption that
competition in terms of quality and feastures and level of service as
well as cost are impossible merely because someone is well served.

Fact is, even in markets that are well served, a global wireless
service of the type I'm talking about can make money and come to
dominate all existing services. As I mentioned our current telecom
infrastructure would rest in a tiny corner of the system I'm
describing at a tiny fraction of the cost. When was the last time
someone with a breakthrough technology that dramatically altered
fundamental pricing structures and service levels DIDN'T make money?
There isn't any. Your commentary is total bull**** in light of this
fact.. Marketing and advertising types given the existence of this
system once in place, would have an easy time of making money every
which way from existing users and providers both,and then continue
from strength to strength as they layered in new services and added
new customers that the new price and service standards made available.

The
rural dwellers have no money to pay for any such thing even if they could
get it.


You are wrong on several counts. No service is sold to the poorest in
a population at the outset. The Pareto principle,80% of the effect
comes from 20% of the population. Is valid in much of marketing. So,
in any region you will concentrate on that 20% at the outset. As you
roll out the system, your cost of providing service will determine
where you stop growing market share. You also assume telecom is a
luxury item. It actually builds economic strength and stability. To
the extent telecom builds wealth, and increases income, use of the
system will grow exponentially.

that the rich urban dwellers


In any population you have a distribution of income. That doesn't
make those with more 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.

make up an even smaller proportion of the
population and the telecommunications infrastructure they have access to
is therefore somewhat worse.


Your facile analysis misses key points. First off, my system cost is
$40 billion. Cost is far less than 1/4% per year - $100 million to
operate the system once in place. The system provides 50 billion
channels of capacity. Crank in a $4 billion ROI annually and you see
you can deliver a wireless channel anywhere for a penny a month.
That's your nut. Now how many people can afford a penny a month?

Well anyone you see drinking a serving of Coca cola in the world at
least once a month would likely be prospects that could afford a penny
a month, even 10 pennies a month. Coca Cola serves up 1 billion
drinks a day world wide. In a month that's 30 billion drinks. Now
there are some who have never tasted Coke, some have tasted it only on
special occasions. Some drink it regularly. But if a dad in timbuktu
bought his kids a soda after a movie after coming to town - even once
a month - he would have enough disposable income to consider buying a
service at $1 per month. But this isn't where you'd start - this is
where you'd stop growing after you got most of the dollars from
existing customers.

At the kind of cost I'm describing, and with the kind of availability
I'm talking about, do you think the owner of this system could find
ways to compete against existing providers? Obviously yes. Yet you
would have us believe such competition is impossible.

By comparison


US 300 million people $43,800 per capita 2.9% growth


Now, $300 per month and $600 per month is small compared to $3,600 per
month - BUT - at even $300 per month a family of four makes $1,200 a
month, and could easily afford $3 to $9 per month for quality wireless
broadband.


And of course there are very few people who make $600/month.


got data? Just wondering. Cause you seem to jabber a lot without
any real data to back it up, and when I provide deta you go out of
your way just to **** on it - as if you knew about it all along.
that's very dishinest.

Fact is, the average is reported by the world bank and others as being
$600 per month in China - purchasing parity - Thats what on average a
person can spend in China.

Is there a distribution around that average? Sure. Do you have the
figures? Do you? No. Well, I will tell you. It falls off steeply
and its bell shaped. ITs not bimodal as you suggest.

After all both are statist economies that have recently embraced
capitalism. So, there are very few very rich. But they're growing in
number.

Fact is, half the population make more than $600 per month and half
the population make less. that's what average mean - assuming its not
bimodal or skewed. Which it ain't. In fact something like 80% of the
population make more than $300 per month - that's $10 per day - PER
PERSON - which means little Genji Woo can talk to her friends nights
and weekends for $1 per MONTH.

Rather there
are a few people making somewhat more who already have broadband,


Again you are saying a provider with greater coverage, lower cost, and
better service can't find a way to compete and make a profit. That's a
ridiculous statement.

and a
whole lot of people making much less who absolutely couldn't afford such a
thing.


You are doing a lot of handwaving but providing precious little data.
The cost of telecom services of the type you are speaking of are $100
to $200 per month - and its true that only a very few can afford
that. But at $10 per month or less, the market widens. But that
doesn't mean you cannot compete in a variety of ways in the high end
market with this infrastructure.

You are just plain wrong Mike. Owning the infrastructure I've
described provides ample opportunity to make huge profits both from
existing customers, by selling capacity to their providers and by
stealing themfrom their providers directly,and fromnew customers who
will acquire services at a lower price, as well as customers who grow
richer because of the service and acquire it to attain that growth.

Check out this country;


Russia 141 million $12,200 per capita 6.7% growth


Here are 2.5 billion people that could afford $9 per month


The conclusion you come to from these numbers is spectacularly ludicrous.


Why?

You might as well determine that the average American has exactly one
testicle,


Males and females form a bimodal distribution - these are two distinct
populations. Are you asserting that there are two distinct income
levels in China? You can always pull someone out of a crowd and
anecdotally say here's a rich person here's a poor one. so what?
What does the population data say? Is there a biomodal distribution?
Are there two populations? Not what people talkabout but what the
data says? Do you have it?

Well the numbers I gave are averages. There is a distirbution around
that average. Over half make $600 per month or more in china =per
person= and more than 80% make $300 per month or more in china [per
person] - Clearly all those people are candidates for new services at
this price point. Those few who already are well served as you say,
will continue with their existing providers who will use this service
to expand their reach quality of service and market base. Those few
who already are well served will also have th eopportunity to be early
adopters of the more expensive services Iwill offer.

and therefore the market for testicle transplants in order to
provide properly balanced sexual organs is ripe for the taking.


You are the one who is saying ludicrous things and not willing to back
it up with any real data. Why is that? You started out your analysis
by saying I would only get at best 0.01% of all EXISTING customers.
When has someone who introduced a lower cost, higher quality, product
with more features achieve such low market pentration? Never. And it
won't happen here. I'd get at least a 12% market share in 2 years.
Just operating head to head conventional. There's a $90 billion a
year telecom market in the world today,and 12% is $10.8 billion per
year. That much on a $40 billion investment makes it a go. But I'm
saying something more besides. There are many many people not well
served and they will be targets for expansion of this system - and
will grow to create huge revenues on top of this head to head knock
off. Then, there are the benefits you can provide FOR existing
service providers. As i said the entire existing telecom
infrastructure could reside in a tiny corner o fthe system I'm
describing. And it costs 1% as much per channel. so,its obviously
going to displace higher cost systems. So, folks will abandon their
existing towers in favor of virtual towers - that is, the $90 billion
a year now earned by the existing telecom providers has about $50
billion per year going into supporting the network. Offer the same
coverage at better level of service with new features,for $25 billion
- and you've got the makings of a huge win win for existing providers
and yourself. Together that's $35 billion in revenues from a $40
billion investment - and everyone in the telecom business is making as
much money as before.

Now,strategically, as owner of the system, I amin a position to lower
price faster and further than my competitors. Lowering price expands
the market size - and so, it clear where things will go after that.

So, best of luck with your project, but for your investors' sake I hope
that you never get anywhere with it.


Its very clear you hope I get nowhere with my idea. Your hatred is
plain for all to see. Fact is,I have no outside investors, I don't
need them.


Your paranoia is amusing.


haha.. Your consistenly abusive conclusions are more amusing.

I have no ill will towards you,


Yet you take every opportunity to say things like i'm paranoid. haha.

I just think
that you're unbelievably clueless


You like calling names don't you? Clueless indeed. You're the one
mouthing bull**** with no data to back it up. Arguing from prejudice
rather than fact. Making statements that fly in the face of economic
and market realities.

The fact is intalling a wireless global broadband service for $40
billion that delivers 50 billion channels at $100 million per year
will produce tremendous wealth in the world, and as a result, produce
huge profits for its owner. You would have us believe that a low cost
provider of a superior service with greater range and universal
coverage couldn't be successful. What a crock.

for someone who's talking about
investing fifty billion dollars of his own money, which of course he
doesn't have yet.


You don't know what I have.

I wish you all the success


No you don't otherwise you would make **** up just so you could call
me clueless and paranoid! haha..Freaking liar.

in the world, I just don't
see how you'll ever have the slightest hope of actually achieving it.


That's obvious. Clearly your inability to see or appreciate the truth
has nothing at all to do with the truth.

As for the rest of your arguments in this thread, I shall let them stand
on their own and the reader may decide for himself.


Whatever.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #44  
Old October 10th 07, 12:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

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.

  #46  
Old October 10th 07, 01:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 10, 7:25 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
skreiv:

world,and there are a large number of people there who would jump at
the chance to have a wireless phone or internet connection at $1 per
month or $1 per year. Recall $1 per channel year and I'm making 125%
of my installation cost each year.


Could you run by us again how you plan to sell 50 billion channels to 6
billion people by having each person purchase one channel ?

Could you also explain how being able to afford $1/year is enough to
cover the nessecary satelite receiver-transmitter ?

Eivind Kjørstad


Wandering thus, there roam over many a country
The gleemen of heroes, mindful of songs for the chanting,
Telling their needs, their heartfelt thankfulness speaking.
Southward or northward, wherever they go, there is some one
Who values their song and is liberal to them in his presents,
One who before his retainers would gladly exalt
His achievements, would show forth his honors. Till all this is
vanished,
Till light and life dissappear, who of praise is deserving
Has ever throughout the wide earth a glory unchanging.

- Widsith (The far wanderer), from the Exeter Book, 1200 AD

A

  #47  
Old October 10th 07, 04:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 10, 8:51 am, American wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:25 am, Eivind Kjorstad wrote:

skreiv:


world,and there are a large number of people there who would jump at
the chance to have a wireless phone or internet connection at $1 per
month or $1 per year. Recall $1 per channel year and I'm making 125%
of my installation cost each year.


Could you run by us again how you plan to sell 50 billion channels to 6
billion people by having each person purchase one channel ?


Could you also explain how being able to afford $1/year is enough to
cover the nessecary satelite receiver-transmitter ?


Eivind Kjørstad


Wandering thus, there roam over many a country
The gleemen of heroes, mindful of songs for the chanting,
Telling their needs, their heartfelt thankfulness speaking.
Southward or northward, wherever they go, there is some one
Who values their song and is liberal to them in his presents,
One who before his retainers would gladly exalt
His achievements, would show forth his honors. Till all this is
vanished,
Till light and life dissappear, who of praise is deserving
Has ever throughout the wide earth a glory unchanging.

- Widsith (The far wanderer), from the Exeter Book, 1200 AD

A


Kewl,.. Love that poem -

To answer Elvind's question bandwidth demand goes up with time as
services increase and improve.

Since there is a long lead time between the start of the project and
the end of its useful life, it makes sense to over specify the design
to account for this increase. 50 billion channels is about the best I
can reasonably come up with.

Now what specifically will be offerred? Well consider the bandwidth
requirements of UHDTV, VR, and TR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepresence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerobotics

http://www.presence-research.org/pap...92defining.pdf
http://telerobotics.stanford.edu/
http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

And the services that can be rendered using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_surgery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCAV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remotely_operated_vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot

Clearly, with adequate universal access to broadband, folks can live
anywhere and work anywhere else. They can also receive sophisticated
services anywhere.

Whether they're driving a cab or truck, or performing open heart
surgery.

Like I said, even the remotest of villages could be equipped with a
small cadre of humaniod (asimo like) telerobots and a bank of
telepresence gear that would allow people in that village to work
anywhere in the world, and recieve services from anywhere in the world
and have the employment agency pay for it all. As a side benefit, all
the members of the village would have personal iphones,wireless
internet access and a media portal, the village would even have a
meeting hall with large scale display - like a movie theater, town
hall, schoohouse.

Of course this wouldn't be the principal source of income. Other
sources would dominate, but this gives an idea of the utility of
having lots and lots of broadband communication.

And I never said a person would purchase the channel one at a time.
How the services are bundled and what marketing channels to go through
varies across the planet and can get quite sophisticated depending on
the details. However, one can see that the entire telecom business
worldwide will fit in a small corner of the proposed system. Thus,
one could market to existing providers as a cost saving measure, even
while one took in head to head competition business from those
providers by having a company owned providder compete. This is sort
of the opening salvo of the product's entry into the marketplace.
Beyond that you build products that have increased demand for
bandwidth - and how those are marketed is determined by how these are
used and what services are valued and demaned in large quantity.

Someone in Hollywood would have a different relationship to this
service than someone in Iowa, or someone in Bangladesh.

A village in Africa may value the telerobot for the dental and medical
services that can be rendered through teh system, a homeowner in LA
may value the access they have to world class chefs in their home
through a robot. Someone in Iowa may value the ability of the robot
to respond personally in a police emergency.


  #48  
Old October 10th 07, 04:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Michael Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default Moon Laws

In rec.arts.sf.science wrote:
First of all, those numbers are purchasing power parity.


Yes, its why I quoted them. If gives us an idea of what they can
afford to spend.

While this gives
a good idea for a person's relative wealth in terms of what they can buy
compared to what you can buy,


It gives us an idea of how much money they have to spend.

it is totally wrong when they're buying
services from you directly,


Bull****, there's a little thing called exchange rates - they're taken
into account..


I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Purchasing Power Parity takes a particular "basket of goods" which is
considered typical for the average person in each country. The cost of
this basket is then compared, and used to come up with how relatively
powerful each currency is for typical purchases.

In theory the exchange rates over the long term should match up with
purchasing power parity. In practice, it is an inexact science (just which
basket of goods do you choose?) and there are many other factors which
affect exchange rates. The end result is that the two are not always the
same, sometimes wildly different. In the case of China we can see that
they are different by about a factor of three.

because they have to pay you in currency you
can use.


Bull****, you obviously do not understand that the figures I've quoted
take exchange rates into account. There's this thing called the
international market? Yeah, things get bought and sold all the time
between nations. You make it sound like a big ass deal. Its not.


That's right, and the rate at which they can exchange their Renminbi or
Rupees into Dollars is governed by exchange rates, not comparative
purchasing power, so knowing what the GDP is in purchasing power parity is
utterly useless. You need to compare nominal GDP which is the one which
takes those "international markets" into account, if you're interested in
how much actual exchangeable currency they can pay you.

The nomimal per capita GDP of China was $2,001 in 2006, and that
of India in 2004 was only $797.


The numbers I gave are for 2007


True, so mine will be off by some percent.

and they took exchange rates into
account.


False. You shouldn't be quoting numbers if you don't know what they mean.
Purchasing power parity does *not* mean "took exchange rates into
account". The one which does that is called "nominal".

I don't know how you cooked up the numbers you did.


It's quite simple. I got a list of countries by nominal GDP. I then
searched the list for "China" and "India", then found the entries
corresponding to those countries.

And the only reason they're that high (high!) are because the demographics
are extremely uneven. In China you have a comparatively small segment of
urban city-dwellers with incomes which compare much more favorably to US
incomes which drag the average up, followed by an unimaginably enormous
rural population which is, in fact, dirt poor.


You said this before but you lack any evidence to support it.


Give this paper a read:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/vi...15&context=iir

You'll find graphs on income distribution near the end. The data is a bit
old, from 2001, but things haven't changed *that* much in the past six
years, epsecially out in the countryside. From the distribution of income
it is quite easy to see how the incomes of the two populations differ, and
how those of the city dwellers pulls the average up and hides the true
poverty of the countryside when you're just looking at averages.

Aside from boring academic papers I've also been to China several times,
and the disparity between city and country is really quite amazing, and
I've never even really been to the truly poor parts.

By no coincidence, the city
dwellers also have access to a fine telecommunications infrastructure.


Have you ever been to the Western frontier in China? Used the phone
services there? Tried to use a cell phone? As usual you're talking
out of your ass.


No, I was talking about the *city dwellers*, as in the high density urban
populations found on the *East* coast of China. That Western frontier
would be part of the region I'm characterizing as "dirt poor".

You are also talking out of your ass with your presumption that
competition in terms of quality and feastures and level of service as
well as cost are impossible merely because someone is well served.


Well, I'm making the somewhat implicit assumption that someone rolling out
a totally brand new $50 billion wireless service might not actually manage
to charge one tenth the price as his entrenched competitors, and in fact
will probably need to charge more than they do.

When was the last time
someone with a breakthrough technology that dramatically altered
fundamental pricing structures and service levels DIDN'T make money?


You have yet to show why your system would be cheaper or how it would be
fundamentally different in any way from what we have now. "Works from
anywhere" is nifty but not world shaking compared to "works from *almost*
anywhere".

that the rich urban dwellers


In any population you have a distribution of income. That doesn't
make those with more 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.


"Rich" is a relative and quite loose term. Compared to the farmers in the
countryside, the city people with their phones and TVs and DVD players and
computers and grocery stores and subways are quite rich.

make up an even smaller proportion of the
population and the telecommunications infrastructure they have access to
is therefore somewhat worse.


Your facile analysis misses key points. First off, my system cost is
$40 billion. Cost is far less than 1/4% per year - $100 million to
operate the system once in place. The system provides 50 billion
channels of capacity. Crank in a $4 billion ROI annually and you see
you can deliver a wireless channel anywhere for a penny a month.
That's your nut. Now how many people can afford a penny a month?


Yes, that is quite... nutty.

Forget the satellites for a moment, I'd love to see your design for a
billing system which can sustain itself on twelve cents per year per
customer, let alone pass any money on to HQ.

At the kind of cost I'm describing, and with the kind of availability
I'm talking about, do you think the owner of this system could find
ways to compete against existing providers? Obviously yes. Yet you
would have us believe such competition is impossible.


If we take all of your facts as a given, that you can make enough of your
own money to put up this system, that you can maintain it for a tiny
fraction of the installation price (what's the lifetime of your
satellites, by the way?), that you can turn a profit by charging people a
dollar a year, sure, you'd crush all competition and win the game.

However, you've yet to give any reasons *why* this will all work at a
dollar a year with eleventy billion subscribers, instead of turning out
more like Iridium and squeezing out a living at hundreds of dollars a
month from a couple of hundred thousand subscribers.

And of course there are very few people who make $600/month.


got data? Just wondering.


My data on average GDP was provided previously, my data on income
distribution was provided earlier in this message.

Fact is, the average is reported by the world bank and others as being
$600 per month in China - purchasing parity - Thats what on average a
person can spend in China.


That is wrong. That is the number of dollars which will buy, in the US,
what the average person can buy in China. But the actual number of dollars
you'd get from exchanging his Yuan would be much lower, because goods are
much cheaper there, even taking exchange rates into account.

Is there a distribution around that average? Sure. Do you have the
figures? Do you? No. Well, I will tell you. It falls off steeply
and its bell shaped. ITs not bimodal as you suggest.


It's not very bell shaped, as I have shown you.

Fact is, half the population make more than $600 per month and half
the population make less.


Let's start with an incorrect assumption!

that's what average mean - assuming its not
bimodal or skewed. Which it ain't.


And then add another one!

In fact something like 80% of the
population make more than $300 per month - that's $10 per day - PER
PERSON


To come up with unfounded conclusions!

- which means little Genji Woo can talk to her friends nights
and weekends for $1 per MONTH.


Toss in a little cultural cluelessness and the result is fun!

and a
whole lot of people making much less who absolutely couldn't afford such a
thing.


You are doing a lot of handwaving but providing precious little data.
The cost of telecom services of the type you are speaking of are $100
to $200 per month - and its true that only a very few can afford
that.


I don't know what services you think I'm talking about but I can assure
you I'm not talking about anything that expensive. Unlimited cellular
broadband can be had in the US for about $60/month, and somewhat slower
service can be had for about $40/month.

Well the numbers I gave are averages. There is a distirbution around
that average. Over half make $600 per month or more in china =per
person= and more than 80% make $300 per month or more in china [per
person]


Life is fun when you make assumptions! Why bother looking up the actual
distribution? It's too hard!

for someone who's talking about
investing fifty billion dollars of his own money, which of course he
doesn't have yet.


You don't know what I have.


I know you don't show up on the list of the world's X richest men. Maybe
you've just hidden your $50 billion very well... right....

I wish you all the success


No you don't otherwise you would make **** up just so you could call
me clueless and paranoid! haha..Freaking liar.


You don't have to believe it, but it's true. Insanely cheap high-speed
internet service via a gigantic constellation of LEO satellites would be
wonderful. It's not going to happen in my lifetime, but it would be great
if it did.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
  #49  
Old October 10th 07, 05:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Moon Laws

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:32:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Ash made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


In theory the exchange rates over the long term should match up with
purchasing power parity. In practice, it is an inexact science (just which
basket of goods do you choose?) and there are many other factors which
affect exchange rates. The end result is that the two are not always the
same, sometimes wildly different. In the case of China we can see that
they are different by about a factor of three.


Is that based on the Big Mac index?

Is there a distribution around that average? Sure. Do you have the
figures? Do you? No. Well, I will tell you. It falls off steeply
and its bell shaped. ITs not bimodal as you suggest.


It's not very bell shaped, as I have shown you.

Fact is, half the population make more than $600 per month and half
the population make less.


Let's start with an incorrect assumption!


He doesn't seem to understand the difference between the median and
the mean (a common misconception).
  #50  
Old October 10th 07, 06:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.station
American
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,224
Default Moon Laws

On Oct 10, 12:44 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:32:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Ash made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In theory the exchange rates over the long term should match up with
purchasing power parity. In practice, it is an inexact science (just which
basket of goods do you choose?) and there are many other factors which
affect exchange rates. The end result is that the two are not always the
same, sometimes wildly different. In the case of China we can see that
they are different by about a factor of three.


Is that based on the Big Mac index?

Is there a distribution around that average? Sure. Do you have the
figures? Do you? No. Well, I will tell you. It falls off steeply
and its bell shaped. ITs not bimodal as you suggest.


It's not very bell shaped, as I have shown you.


Fact is, half the population make more than $600 per month and half
the population make less.


Let's start with an incorrect assumption!


He doesn't seem to understand the difference between the median and
the mean (a common misconception).


One common thread I discovered, weaving its way through both of the
arguments was what needs to be accomplished on a mass scale - which is
an expansion of markets AWAY from being totally centralized, into a
completely diversified environment - both culturally and
geographically - in order that the *descriptors* of cross-cultural
communication are enhanced, generating more scientific ideas from more
scientific people with more scientific backgrounds! The only way that
decentralization on a mass scale can be achieved is through the mass-
marketing of personalized communication devices, similar to the I-
phone, so that competition causes the price to plummet. The ones who
'make it to the top' are the ones who generate the most descriptors w/
the keenest outlook.

The point is that world class industrialization does not have to be so
localized in heavily populated areas - by decentralizing a corporate
office to rural territory, and providing a cultural exchange
mechanism, a greater opportunity exists for private industries to
branch out into diverse areas, rather than being swamped by hoardes of
commuters and 'populist' media propoganda - such is the seedbed of
unhealthy nationalism!

What needs to be accomplished on a mass scale is an expansion of
markets AWAY from being totally centralized, into a completely
diversified environment - both culturally and geographically - in
order that the *descriptors* of cross-cultural communication are
enhanced, generating more scientific ideas from more scientific people
with more scientific backgrounds! The only way that decentralization
on a mass scale can be achieved by this method is through the mass-
marketing of personalized communication devices, similar to the I-
phone, so that competition causes the price to plummet. The ones who
'make it to the top' are the ones who generate the most descriptors
with the keenest outlook.


American

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Laws of Nature G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 0 January 2nd 07 11:31 PM
80/f5 For the In-Laws [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 November 3rd 05 01:55 AM
IP in china worse than no laws at all [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 1 February 24th 05 04:02 AM
Kepler's laws and trajectories tetrahedron Astronomy Misc 2 March 27th 04 06:31 AM
Kepler's laws Michael McNeil Astronomy Misc 1 January 23rd 04 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.