|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I feel much more charitable about vendor problems caused by a satellite going
out than I do about problems caused by a vendor which is unwilling to fix
problems which are well within its control. I think we need to give this thing a
few days to sort out before we'll know if contingency planning has been
adequate. My initial read on things is that it's the responsibility of the
carrier, e.g. PanAmSat, to incorporate backup capabilities into their service.
PanAmSat, with multiple satellites, should be in a position to redistribute
loads from a failed satellite to other satellites. The costs for each satellite
user to maintain redundent transponder capacity on different satellites would be
extremely high and extremely wasteful.
PanAmSat has been experiencing problems with Galaxy IV for well over a month and
had already ordered a replacement with expected launch in late 1999. Without
knowing the details, it appears to me that it has been PanAmSat which has failed
to deal with the loss of Galaxy IV on a timely basis. Heck, with a significant
portion of the country's communications out, PanAmSat couldn't even manage to
communicate effectively with the press.
Earl
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Everson <pae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 10:44 AM
Subject: BMI says do not realign
>I feel blind. Anyone else feeling less than charitable about DBC's
>contingency planning?
|