It definitely wouldn't be an easy thing to put together, and there would be a lot of details that would have to be worked out.
The only way I can really see it working, would be if it was basically a franchise system... local guy pays whatever franchise fees, and in exchange gets to use the brand and gets a protected area (only protected from other franchisees, obviously...), it would probably make sense to also take on the role of a distributor, to some extent, and probably also provide some level of customer support. It could work, but I'm guessing getting a lot of existing WISPs to sign up for something like that isn't going to be easy. The WISPs that already have an established brand with a good local reputation aren't going to be crazy about the idea of dumping all that and starting over with a new brand, and the ones that don't... you aren't going to want involved (unless they're brand new startups, but that's a whole different thing). On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am might be wrong, but I don't see many of those working out. Who fronts > the money for the drop in the bucket national ad campaign? National brand > awareness doesn't just happen. Same for buying equipment. Who runs the > warehouse, do you pay upfront for the equipment? How long do you have to > wait for your delivery since it adds a step? I doubt the distributors will > give you a big price break if you expect them to drop ship a 10000 unit > order to 125 different places. > > How do you deal with someone that is hurting your brand? > > I guess I just don't see that the advantages outweigh the huge PITA but I > hope it works for you guys. I guess I saw the difficulties in trying to > make a similar deal with only 4 companies. It took almost a year. > > It would have a natural extension into IX and peering I guess. > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 3:17 AM Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: > >> Some of the Benefits: >> >> National Brand Awareness – huge plus when your brand is know and >> recognized as option #3 nationally >> >> Standardized Operations – getting a bunch of WISP together and >> standardizing on the best operations procedures could be daunting but the >> benefits overshadow the initial work >> >> Buying/Negotiating power – buying 100 radios vs 10000 could be a great >> negotiating point, also when negotiating tower leases, fiber, ip transit >> etc.. >> >> Political / Lobbying – being represented by ONE entity that is backed by >> hundred of thousands of subs will provide leverage when lobbying at FCC and >> other political maters. Ht wisp operator could be seen as one of the big >> boys in the table vs scattered small mom and pop shops… >> >> Better prospect for exit/acquisition – Investors will take notice and as >> a conglomerate, there are better financial outlook in a exit strategy. >> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Travis Johnson <t...@ida.net >> > >> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:19 PM >> >> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP >> >> And honestly, what benefits are you hoping to gain?? A single name? >> Better pricing on equipment? >> >> I'm not sure I understand what the ultimate goal would be, and if it >> would be worth the cost to "consolidate" hundreds or thousands of small >> companies. >> >> Things are different now than they were in the early cell days... or the >> early cable days (as Rise/JAB is discovering). It seems like KeyOn was >> trying to do something similar to this, even going public, before dying a >> slow and miserable death. >> >> Travis >> >> >> On 1/30/2018 8:04 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: >> >> I like the concept, it's going to be like herding cats though... >> >> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first cellular >>> networks their evolution and when the industry started to explode would >>> need to be laid out. Starting from the early 80’s on up through. This is >>> important because as Gino has suggested, the WISP industry is following a >>> very similar path and has always suffered from brand/product image, >>> recognition and understanding. Cellular phones back then suffered the same >>> problem. The word cellular was understood as a biology term by most. The >>> term “Car Phones” was better understood and only those who had a lot of >>> money had those and it was a party line system with no privacy. People had >>> them out of extreme necessity only. The concept of anyone other than the >>> phone company being able to deliver a phone service would not have ever >>> seemed possible to a consumer. At that time the breakup of Ma Bell was just >>> happening. A person could easily start a cellular network, no spectrum >>> auctions back then. Just apply to the FCC and pay the license fees. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working on a >>> consulting project for AT&T in Portland Oregon years ago, we had to review >>> leases, zoning approvals and other documents to determine if sites could be >>> expanded and what work was required for same. Sometimes leases mentioned >>> specific frequencies and antennas etc. so they might have to be >>> renegotiated or modified to add data and new frequencies and antennas. In >>> this process I had my hands on Craig McCaw’s first 4 cell tower leases on >>> his first built cellular system. It was very cool to be holding that piece >>> of history, his personal signature and all. Such an innovator that hadn’t >>> hit his stride yet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank You, >>> >>> Brian Webster >>> >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP >>> >>> >>> >>> I won’t be there. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank You, >>> >>> Brian Webster >>> >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On >>> Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP >>> >>> >>> >>> Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Brian Webster < >>> i...@wirelessmapping.com> >>> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM >>> *To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP >>> >>> >>> >>> Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig >>> McCaw really helped those independent operators when he created a national >>> branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B >>> side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group >>> of WISP’s who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a >>> conference call and discuss. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank You, >>> >>> Brian Webster >>> >>> www.wirelessmapping.com >>> >>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On >>> Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP >>> >>> >>> >>> Hey Guys >>> >>> >>> >>> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this >>> should be repeated in the WISP industry? >>> >> >>
