#41
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |