I'd agree wholeheartedly. Sizing and being able to accurately anticipate capacity demands is the key. Albeit, a very elusive one. I submit that in each cited case where there have been problems, someone had previously thought that they had achieved a viable sizing of the market.
This argument reminds me in some ways of the old saw about the Internet itself never being able to scale beyond T1, possibly T3 rates, which was proven wrong. The concern I would hold out in the satellite realm, however, is whether or not the streams which are deemed adequate today will be relevant in another three years. Moore's Law, The Turnpike and Corridor Effects, and users' plain old insatiable appetite for bandwidth may relegate Satellite use to only those regions or locales that cannot get it any other way. Of which, there is still an appreciable target audience that would be willing to pay, if the provider can satisfy their requirements on a sustained basis, as you so aptly noted.
All of which may result in rationing of spot beams to only those who would need it, or desire to pay for it for reasons other than reach. There is a sense of natural equilibrium to the model, I suppose, that should prove out if some of these assumptions are correct. Notwithstanding, if the capacity is made available at anywhere near reasonable prices, it will be used and paid for. |
