http://www.telecompetitor.com/massachusetts-joins-effort-urging-the-fcc-to-release-connect-america-funding-to-states/
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 11:51 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? Some states have a state USF and it is handled differently, sometimes with strings attached. I don’t think telcos turn down federal USF. Some do turn down CAF and some states want CAF. CAF is tax dollar based. And CAF is not related to divestiture. It is an invention of the Obama administration. CAF != USF by any stretch. And there is a push in all states to make ISPs fund the USF right along with cell phone carriers and everyone else. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:46 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? But now you see states (I think Massachusetts is the latest) want to receive the USF money their telcos have turned down. Why is there no sunset on this “fee”? I think USF “contributions” have doubled in recent years? Why not just let the percentage go back down, if the telcos don’t want the money. I think because of not calling it a tax, even though it walks and quacks like a tax. If it was called a tax, the public and all fiscal conservative legislators would be all over it, to have it reduced or eliminated. It’s like the March of Dimes, we need to reinvent ourselves, polio was eliminated, but we still have all these dimes coming in! Plus I take issue with your historical analysis, nothing about LD revenue and breaking up the Bell System justifies the repurposing of this money to the “Connect America Fund”. Let’s face it, POTS is a relic, and the concept of LD vs local calling is a relic. People are switching to cellphones and that isn’t going to change. All government programs need a sunset provision, where their original reason for existence has to be re-examined and justified anew. The real day of reckoning will come when the “contribution base” from interstate voice no longer funds CAF, and they want to make ISPs start contributing on their broadband revenue. You’re internet bill now has a new 17% fee! Will these unelected agencies be able to say nothing to see here, it’s just a fee, move along? Or will Congress have to authorize it? And if so, will they have to treat it as a tax and therefore the third rail especially with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and a Republican? In the White House? Not sure what DJT would think of it. Populists traditionally favor bread and circuses, and don’t worry as much about deficit spending as Republicans supposedly do. New taxes would still seem counterintuitive. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 11:18 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? No, it is a replacement for revenue previously obtained from AT&T on line-haul agreements. As a consideration for the divestiture and forcing AT&T to allow others to enter the long distance arena, the revenue previously shared with the smaller non AT&T companies was diverted to the National Exchange Carriers Association, NECA for distribution in a socialist manner. And everyone’s long distance bills went way way down. Then when the 96 act happened and CLECS were allowed to enter the local exchange market similar how the LD companies were allowed after divestiture, USAC was invented to move some of the local exchange tariff revenue into another pool to replace money that local exchange carriers would lose when CLECs stole their customers. So, LD revenue and local revenue were moved to pools to allow competition. NECA administers one pool of revenue, USAC the other. Neither is the government. And contributions are non compulsory on the customers however most pass the fees along, however some do not. NECA and USAC are simply two not for profit companies that have been designated by the FCC to distribute the dole. I remember when a phone call to the next town over , 13 miles away, was 15 cents per minute during the day. Anyone want to go back to that? You do not have to use a phone. You do not have to water ski at Lake Powell, so the National Park Service fee to enter the area is a fee, not a tax. From: Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:06 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? Hi, Not to be picky about terminology, but by definition a "tax" is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions." Isn't this money collected as USF and other "fees" on telephone bills? And these are fees that I can NOT remove from my phone bill, so basically it's a tax... it's just a telephone tax rather than income or sales tax. Right? Travis On 1/12/2017 9:59 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: Depending on the area, FCC study area, parent trap rules etc, a rural sub can earn up to about $200/month even if they don’t pay their bill or use any services. It used to be more. If you overearn, your welfare check gets cut, but in any case the guaranteed rate of return used to be 11.25%. And that is an ROI after cost recovery of legit expenses. That is an EBITDA ROR. Hard to pass up a deal like that. But the FCC is deflating that whole program. They pushed a whole bunch of these rural companies into a lucrative A-CAM deal that pays them a fixed amount for the next 10 years with the expectation of nothing after that. For the “buy out” they have to agree to upgrade to 25 Mbps service. They did cap executive pay for a while then repealed it, I think it is back on. And for the non A-CAM companies (it was an elective program) they are capping investment. But still, it is around $10K per dwelling. That may seem high, but I have personally had BLM permitting expenses equal $40K per dwelling alone with total cost of construction hitting $200K per dwelling. The magic of revenue pooling, no tax dollars are harmed in this scheme... From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:51 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? Chuck, here’s a question for you. I seem to remember checking how much Frontier paid for customers Verizon and AT&T didn’t want, and I think it was around the same $2000/sub number that cable companies are typically priced at. Or maybe it was $1000 and I rationalized it in my mind as half of a cable customer because no TV. Either way, it was a lot of money for unwanted customers and decrepit infrastructure. Why such a high value? Why not $1? Are they factoring in an expected stream of USF/CAF subsidies as part of the value of buying a customer? Or are they just being stupid? I assume executive pay goes up the bigger the company grows, so maybe perverse incentives. Look at the marvelous Hindenburg we have built, it’s HUGE! From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 10:39 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? Even if EBITDA is zero year over year, you can look at growth of equity. If the assets are truly worth what they are booked at, then buy for that value. I prefer net present value of future cash flows to be a part of the analysis. But for something that has been a going concern for some time, with little debt and equity close to net asset value, multiples of EBITDA are a comfortable way to value the thing. However, in a WISP situation where you are buying the customer and some amount of SM and AP that may or may not have much value to you, net present value may be the way to go. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 8:39 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? I think there is some validity in getting the revenue and expense numbers separately and doing your own analysis. If you just ask for their net income, that will vary greatly based on how the current owners are managing the business, I think there are 3 types: 1) Being run as a startup 2) Being run as a big company / cash cow 3) Being groomed for sale A 190 sub WISP is probably being run as a startup. First, that means managing cashflow not profit. Second, that means any time you have an extra dime, you spend it on expanding the business. If those are capital expenditures, maybe they go into depreciation and get excluded from EBITDA. But if they go into advertising, subscriber radios, install materials and labor, etc., that gets expensed and makes the business look less profitable. Whatever year it was that capital gains taxes went back up, I heard a tutorial on how to groom your business for sale before the deadline. Basically you stop focusing on increasing revenue, and instead cut costs, it will immediately improve your EBITDA and therefore your valuation. I think we’ve all experienced this when something causes us to temporarily cut back expenses, for me it happens every winter. All of a sudden your business becomes a cash cow and looks amazingly profitable. I also see this when I look at certain competitors who don’t have up to date equipment, don’t maintain their network, don’t have battery backup at tower sites, and all their customers hate them for their slow service, frequent outages, and poor customer service. You ask yourself, how can they stay in business? Ask yourself, if you cut way back on expenses, and as a result lost 25% of your customers every year, would your business be more or less profitable? It might be more profitable. Long term, you have to believe these WISPs will eventually go out of business, but year after year they survive. And maybe someone will buy them because they are profitable on paper. But they end up acquiring bad infrastructure and dissatisfied customers. Not saying to ignore EBITDA, but I think many worthwhile WISPs that are still in startup mode will have zero EBITDA. While if they have spent 6-12 months fluffing up the numbers to maximize their valuation for a sale, those better numbers may be deceptive. One final note, when I worked at Tellabs (around 1990), I remember the founder saying you want to make a small profit. Any more just means you pay more taxes, and some raider can buy you with your own cash. Better to reinvest that money in the business. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:03 AM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? i hear that and 4x ebidta over and over. in terms of they don't know what ebitda does i don't even ask for those numbers. after initial conversations i always ask for a years worth of bank statements. i've been known to go back three years. i can plug that data into quickbooks in a day and then pull pretty much whatever financial data i need to pull. and it does not offend the company you are trying to purchase who is almost guaranteed to now know that ebitda is (earnimngs before interest tax and depreciation) ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Hammett To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? I hear that is around 12x - 18x months of revenue and a heck of a lot easier to calculate when ballparking. They know their revenue (or well, is somewhat easy to figure out). They probably can't spell EBITDA. ----- Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> _____ From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:16:00 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? 4x ebitda From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:14 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Price per sub? How many subs? On Jan 11, 2017 3:13 PM, "Brett A Mansfield" <li...@silverlakeinternet.com <mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com> > wrote: When looking at buying a competitor, I'm wondering what everyone's thought is on a price per sub? They don't do contracts and they use the litebeam hardware. I'm not looking for legal advice, just wondering what all of you think is fair. This company has about a 90% take rate in the area they're in. Their plans are $20, $40, and $50/mo. Thank you, Brett A Mansfield
