XPost: sci.space.moderated, sci.space.station, sci.space.tech   
   From: ken123@xtra.co.nz   
      
   "Hop David"  wrote in message   
   news:3FD771F5.60007@tabletoptelephone.com...   
   >   
   >   
   > Paul F. Dietz wrote:   
   >   
   > > Cables are popular because they're *cheaper* than satellites   
   > > (per unit of delivered bandwidth) what with the incredible advances   
   > > in fiber optics.   
   > >   
   > >     Paul   
   > >   
   >   
   >   
   > Perhaps for large metropolitan areas. I live in a little podunk place 120   
   > miles from Tucson or Phoenix. Folks on the nearby rez who'd have no way   
   > of getting fiber optic or cable are getting dishes.   
   >   
   > However the metropolitan markets are much more lucrative. Don't know if   
   > reaching the planet's rural areas justifies comsats.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Hop David   
   > http://clowder.net/hop/index.html   
   >   
   It's a really dicey proposition. The number of people required in an area to   
   make it feasible to put in a terrestrial solution tends to be much less than   
   that required to make the comsat solution viable. While you can get greater   
   coverage area with comsat than a terrestrial install, you tend to need to   
   limit your coverage area anyway to raise the power level in your area of   
   interest to something considered usable by the customer (ie. they want a   
   small dish!). So it gets hard to get a satellite solution going with a   
   chance of long-term viability. Companies are still trying though - most   
   fascinating!  :-)   
      
   Ken   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)