🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep28.041839.28539@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>len@netsys.com (Len Rose) writes:
>
>> I think we are being quite reasonable with the costs, and ultimately, I 
>> hope we'll never charge for anything else. 
>
>A nobel thought, albeit misplaced. Companies are in business to make money
>by providing a service. You don't make money by not charging for a service
>you are providing.
>
>In subsequent years, there will be a "cost" to use this downlink system.
>What that cost is, however, will not be known until some later time.
>
>That, coupled with the high cost of initial hardware investment, makes this
>a questionable investment, in my opinion.

Moreover, transponder time is REAL expensive.

The question here is how many people buy the service + equipment.  If the
number is large, you might get by with a much lower monthly cost.  If the
number is small, then you might end up with a larger monthly cost, or no
service at all!

Absent a guarantee that (1) the company will be around, and (2) that the
news will continue to flow at some fixed price past the first year, this
doesn't sound like anything other than a hell of a gamble.

Note that "Stargate" died, and so have the other "news by satellite" people
which have come before.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions