🚀 go-pugleaf

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
: In article <1992Sep28.041839.28539@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
: >len@netsys.com (Len Rose) writes:

: >That, coupled with the high cost of initial hardware investment, makes this
: >a questionable investment, in my opinion.

Remember that it's a narrow band system so comparing the price to 
a wide band video system that's made in hundreds of thousands of 
units is an underestimate.  It would be more like cost of wideband 
system + cost of SCPC + cost of modem.  ( + bundled cost of service.)

: 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.

Yes, but how many were piggybacking on the surplus resources of a company
already in the satellite data business.

But I have to agree that bundling the price looks like a future cash
flow problem to me.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com