| reply to BodyBumper
Re: Progress I have to agree. Unless there is something dreadfully wrong with my math, it seems cheaper to put up a $250 million dollar satellite that will cover most of the continental US that to put up 100 blimps at $30 per for a total of $3 billion. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by raybrett: it seems cheaper to put up a $250 million dollar satellite that will cover most of the continental US that to put up 100 blimps at $30 per for a total of $3 billion. That may be true but remember the Blimps are only 12 miles high vs 22,241 for geosynchronous satellites. The huge distance makes satellites impractical for two-way communication. Ask any gamer who has a satellite connection about latency.
said by kyramilan: Mabybe fireworks shot at them? Pretty good trick since they are going to be 12 miles high.
said by calvoiper: All this would do is waste frequencies. Imagine if you could only use a cellular frequency once within the whole state of Texas, instead of re-using it scores or hundreds of times within a single metropolitan area. Putting an antenna this high will only waste frequency allocation. Think about it--whatever frequency this outfit might get would be much more valuable used over and over again from conventional towers. I’m not sure that will be a huge problem. I have to assume they will use an array of many passively steerable antennas to allow spatial and frequency reuse.
/Tom |
|
