Right now, I'm not installing any of my own fiber. All new expansion is wireless.
They do not plan on allowing anyone other than the owner to use the network. I'm pushing for other options, but it seems unlikely they will open it. Once they are closer to lighting their service, I plan to make at least one offering that matches theirs for speed and price. It sounds like it will be possible to retain customers, but not to expect many. I do need some of the sites to expand into areas that will not be getting fiber, so I might as well cover some new customers along the way. -Chris On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote: > Ahh, I was thinking deploy wireless first before the fiber. I could > care less if they brought the fiber in later. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 9:54 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Let someone else do the fiber. First. > > > > *From:* Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 10:34 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Did I misunderstand the goal? Was the question to put fiber in first or > put in wireless first? > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 9:28 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Second mover advantage with fiber, not RF. Let the muni experiment falter > then come in and mop up. > > > > *From:* Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 10:12 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Can you be more specific? Right now you have 802.11ac with nothing coming > behind it in the same price category. You have different flavors of > 802.11ac technologies but the fundamentals are the same. I don’t believe > being second to fiber is a good move. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 8:07 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Second mover advantage really works out well with emerging technologies. > > > > *From:* Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 8, 2015 12:04 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > I completely disagree with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Webster. Being > second to the game is like trying to ask a girl to the prom who has already > been asked. If you snooze, you lose. If you get the customers first, > especially if you get 2 year contracts, they will have a lot harder time > displacing you. You are in a better position if you already have customers > and revenue in place when they fail. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On > Behalf Of *David Milholen > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 7, 2015 7:24 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > +1 > they will try so hard just not to keep it going. Once they go over the > tipping point of going out to peoples homes to hook up grandmas laptop or > keep their ipad connected. > > On 7/7/2015 7:03 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote: > > 100% agree with Brian. This seems to be the path for about 99% of the > Muni WISPS out there. Keep your eye on it, get to the know the staff. When > the pain seems to get to much for them to bear offer to step in. > > > > The only thing you will have to deal with is the customers who think you > should charge, or give for free, with the same structure a tax funded > entity couldn't make work. That won't matter since those socialists can't > understand logic there is no use explaining it to them. > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> > wrote: > > My suggestion would be to just wait it out. Let them build it and lose > money. Eventually they will realize that they have no idea how to be an > ISP, the customers will not deal with slow government response times to > complaints, and the government will hate dealing with title II issues and > open internet regulations. They will throw their hands up and offer it via > bid or something else to a private company to manage/own/run. You might be > able to pick it up for far less than it would have cost you to build. I > certainly would not try to overbuild them before they get going. The > average consumer has already heard about their promised prices, you will be > fighting that even though they have not even started building yet. > > > > Do a search for the UC2B project in Illinois, it was a > municipal/university system built with stimulus funds. They did what they > needed to meet grant obligations, then they all argued among the partners > about who and how they would run things and failed at that. They finally > let a private company take over and expand the system. > > > > Thank You, > > Brian Webster > > www.wirelessmapping.com > > www.Broadband-Mapping.com > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl Peterson > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 8:45 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > > Assuming you didn't have to recoup build costs, I don't see how it would > be hard to run the network at $50 per sub. Bandwidth is dirt cheep at > scale and there isn't much to go wrong with a fiber plant. > > > On Jul 6, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> > wrote: > > About $40M is grant funding from the state for "last mile" services > that is only available to municipalities. The balance of the funding is > coming from town borrowing. My town will receive about $1.2M from the grant > and will vote in September whether to authorize $2.3M of borrowing that > would be paid with property tax. > > > > I'm 95% sure this will go through, and the network would be lit in about 3 > years, but I can't get their numbers to work out. I cannot see how they can > actually provide service and maintain their network and offer a base > service of only $50 / month. If that jumps to $100, I could see remaining > competitive, though. > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > Where is the funding coming from? > > I would not be comfortable building in an area where I am sure to get over > built. > > > > *From:* Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> > > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 11:56 AM > > *To:* af@afmug.com > > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? > > > > Several of the rural towns in my planned coverage area are looking into > municipal fiber (average density about 10 premises per fiber mile, all > above ground). They're claiming $50 for 25 Mbps service, $79 for 100 Mbps, > and $109 for 1 Gbps. They already have funding authorized in about half of > the towns they are targeting... but they'd be about 3 years from providing > any service. > > > > Is it reasonable or possible to compete with such a thing? Should I ignore > any area that plans to fund this, or might it be worth getting a foothold > before their system is lit? > > > > Thanks - Chris > > > > > > > > -- > > Lewis Bergman > > 325-439-0533 Cell > > > > -- >
