Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I certainly understand SNR and how it effects licensed gear as well. If you want to operate a network of any size you are going to need at least 3 channels. Further, even with 3 channels you will need to operate more than one sector on the same channel at a base station, which is certainly going to lower your SNR. We see this today we 5.8Ghz where self-interference is the only kind of interference we run into most of the time. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: Hi Matt, You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To:
[WISPA] McDowell Becomes FCC Member
McDowell Becomes FCC Member Todd Shields MAY 29, 2006 - The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Republican Robert McDowell to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission, giving FCC Chair Kevin Martin his first working majority. With McDowell as a third Republican member of the agency, Martin can more aggressively pursue plans that include pressuring cable companies to offer channels à la carte, and liberalizing media ownership rules. The agency has been at a two-to-two partisan deadlock for most of the time since Martin took office in March 2005. McDowell, a telephone association executive, cleared the Senate without a recorded vote under a procedure that can be stopped by a single member’s objection. McDowell is senior vp and assistant general counsel to Comptel, which represents smaller telephone companies and other competitors to the big Bell legacy firms. Martin is eager to loosen the rule barring common ownership of daily newspapers and nearby broadcast stations. He also has said the commission may revisit whether to require cable operators to carry more than one digital TV channel offered by broadcasters. Martin was the sole dissenting vote in February 2005 when the FCC decided to require carriage of just one digital channel. Link here; http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576773 --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wireless Users No Longer Charged Federal Excise Tax
May 25, 2006 Wireless Users No Longer Charged Federal Excise Tax By Susan J. Campbell TMCnet Contributing Editor As a wireless user, aren’t you glad that have been able to do your civic duty in financing the Spanish-America War? Yes, I am talking about the same war that took place at the turn of the century – the last century. The United States Treasury has made a decision to abandon its legal dispute over the federal excise tax (FET) on long-distance telephone service. This 108-year-old FET was instituted in 1898 to finance the Spanish-American War and adds 3 percent to the monthly bill of every wireless user in America. To date, that number exceeds 214 million estimated subscribers. The Wireless Association President and CEO Steve Largent congratulated the US Treasury on its decision, pointing out that the Spanish-American War ended successfully a long time ago. After a rough ride for consumers, the battle over the FET has also come to an end. Largent continued, stating that today, every wireless subscriber in the nation can celebrate a much-deserved 3 percent tax cut. Without the millions of wireless users all across America lending their voice to this effort, the Wireless Association may not have reached this important day. The federal surcharge was found to be illegal by five separate U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. As a result, the Internal Revenue Service has come under increasing pressure in recent months to repeal the FET. The ancient tax was levied on phone calls, but the charges varied based on the call’s duration and distance traveled. The wireless industry changed its strategy and abandoned this tariff years ago in favor of offering consumers “all-distance” minutes. Now that the FET is finally taking its rightful place along side the Spanish-American War in US history books, wireless consumers can now turn their attention and efforts to repealing discriminatory wireless taxes on the state and local level, continued Largent. It is the numerous state and local wireless-specific surcharges Largent was referring to that contribute to the average wireless American user paying 17 percent of his or her monthly bill in taxes and fees. The CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association) is seeing an influx of Americans turning to wireless to meet their telecommunication’s needs. As a result, state and local policy makers are looking at the growing number of wireless consumers to plug holes in their budgets. Largent pointed out that these taxes can be roadblocks to low or fixed-income Americans who want to enjoy the benefits and efficiencies that only wireless can deliver. Some public bodies still considering tax policies that discourage segments of the population from taking part in the wireless revolution makes no sense at all. It is also unfortunate that our government has historically demonstrated mismanagement of our tax dollars as this excise tax should have ended with the war. Instead, it was collected for years to fund other things for which it was never intended. Most likely, we will probably see a replacement tax pop up on the ballot in the near future as our government tends to hate to do without that which it is accustomed to. --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll - Last post on this subject
II4A hired 2 lobbyists to write 7 template letters each, so that the 14 templates would sound and look different. Just download, sign and fax to your Congress Critter. How many people downloaded them? Less than 15. How many people were aware of them? I'd argue that could also be a communication problem (method of letting people know its an available resource.) At ISP-CEO, you could not concisely explain what the lawsuit purpose or goal was. (Maybe you announced too early). Then when pushed you said: Physical Separation. As much as I like Structural Seperation idea, its like going back in history to day 1, and starting over, forgetting all legislation and negotiation thathas happened to date. Not likely going to be a possibilty ever again. The reason is major changes kill momentum, and the country is clearly with a gaol to gain broadband to every where quickly to keep up with the other countries. They aren't going to favor major disruptive solutions. Part of me worries that the lawsuit will render all ISPs obsolete. Why? A little Anti-Trust history. The US vs. GE anti-trust case was dismissed after 9 years. Assistant Attorney General in charge of the department's antitrust division, said the case had been dismissed because the passage of time had reduced the significance of the case and any court order the Government might win. Microsoft had over 130 private anti-trust suits filed against it. Did anyone win one? The US vs. MS lasted 5 years. Covad filed against VZ, but that was just a bargaining move. Covad is still suing BST, filed in 2002. NorthPoint tried to sue VZ for $4B in anti-trust, but settled for a 5% ownership. Sun has been suing Microsoft. SCO is suing IBM. Do you see the pattern here? Lots of big cases that take lots of time, energy, effort and money. And the only winners are the lawyers. Allthough you are making a good point, you leave out one very significant case. The Monopoly battles that led to the seperation of the Bells in the first place. A victory of epic proportion was made once, and therefore it is possible to make it once again. I say expend the energy building a business based on Layer 1 or Layer 7. Building a business model on Layer7 is risky until Net Neutrality is defined. Building a business model on Layer 1 is risky when Someone else already owns masses infrastructure with the advantages of economy of scale, time to market, and no cost pre-existing (The Bells). I argue you have to hit them from all sides. And encumber the competition in every way possible, and not let go of any thing that you have or want to have, while building layer 1 and 7 solutions. Ultimately, I believe the arguement is that... American legislation, policy makers, and law inforcement (courts) are constantly ruling in favor of destroying American businesses and enterprise. The destruction and hinderence of the majority of American Internet related businesses is the cause of low penetration rate within the country. We need to support any effort that sends home the message that support must be given for independant small businesses. And the beauty of the Internet was a cooperate effort of network operators that inter-connect. The path now, os that the Internet will eventually be controlled by a handfull of goliath companies instead. This is not only a threat to the vision of the Internet but to national security as well. What we can not forget is... Once we send the message that we accept that the Monopolies are untouchable and make the rules, it will become a never ending never winning battle lossing to them until we are extinct. When you give, people take. When you bow, people push you down. The bells should never be left off the hook for their wrong doings. Why because, whats keeping them from relicating their practices to kill Layer1 and layer7 competitors as well. Isn't the real goal, to take over the Internet? Do you think they will stop at being happy that they do not have to share their copper? I applaud the efforts of those like Frank, regardless of wether a possible victory is realistic or likely. There is a lot of new legislation being debated this upcomming years, and the message needs to be sent that we are NOT giving up, and we will NOT go away. And that is the best way to help ensure that we will be considered amicably in upcomming legislation. Quite honestly I think the the ISP community needs as many bargining chips as possible for the future. I no longer hate the telcos and cable companies. I've grown (matured) past that. I actually respect them for their persistance and strategy that appears to be working for them from some perspectives. After all they managed to delay American broadband expansion to a low 17th place, to keep the cash cow telecom revenue comming in as long as possible. Instead, I've directly my emotion to support for the Small business and independant provider, that need
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Matt, I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I misunderstood one of your earlier emails then. I thought you were advocating the split of the entire band into mutually exclusive licenses. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency
[WISPA] Home Broadband Penetration Up 40 Percent In Past Year
Home Broadband Penetration Up 40 Percent In Past Year Washington, D.C. -- May 29, 2006 -- Adoption of high-speed Internet at home grew twice as fast in the year prior to March 2006 than in the same time frame from 2004 to 2005, according to a report of the Pew Internet American Life Project, titled Home Broadband Adoption 2006. Middle-income Americans accounted for much of the increase, along with African Americans and new Internet users coming online with broadband at home. At the end of March 2006, 42 percent of Americans had high-speed at home, up from 30 percent in March 2005, or a 40 percent increase. Among Americans in the middle-income range - those whose household incomes are between $40,000 and $50,000 per year - home high-speed penetration grew by 68 percent from 2005 to 2006. Other sources of broadband growth were: * African Americans, whose home broadband penetration grew by 121 percent, from 14 percent of all adults to 31 percent with high-speed at home, * New Internet users; overall online penetration grew by seven percentage points, from 66 percent to 73 percent, and nearly half of these Americans new to the Internet got broadband. The Pew Internet survey also documents an important marketplace shift: Telephone companies offering less-expensive digital subscriber line (DSL) connections have overcome the once-sizeable lead that cable companies had in the broadband market. DSL accounted for 50 percent the home broadband market in our latest data while cable modem providers had 41 percent. This is an exact reversal of market shares from a year earlier, and DSL has a significant price advantage over cable modem service. Subscribers to DSL service at home report a $32 monthly bill, compared to $41 for cable modem users. These aggressive pricing strategies paid off for DSL providers; DSL won the bulk of the new business from high-growth population segments. The early adoption phase of broadband-to-the-home is behind us, said John B. Horrigan, Associate Director for Research and principal author of the report. As broadband moves beyond the elite, so does an online activity once largely the province of early adopters - posting content to the Internet. Some 48 million Internet users have put some sort of content for the Internet - whether that's maintaining a webpage or sharing creative work online. Three-quarters of those who post content to the Internet have high-speed Internet connections at home. Young people have the most likely sources of user-generated content, but this activity is evenly distributed across income groups, by gender, and levels of education. The mainstreaming of high-speed, in combination with user-generated content being a widespread phenomenon, suggests that individuals will continue to shape the Internet, said Horrigan said. This means that an Internet that permits open access to lawful content is of great value to the tens of millions of Americans who post their creative work online. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy statement entitled New Principles Preserve the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet which included the principle that consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice. The current debate in Congress about network neutrality pertains to whether, or in what form, additional regulatory or legislative action is necessary to maintain this policy principle as high-speed networks evolve. The new Pew Internet report also contains data on awareness and home adoption of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone services. As of the end of 2005, 61 million Americans say they have heard of the service - up by 86 percent since February 2004 - and approximately 3 percent of Internet users have VoIP service at home. Of those with VoIP at home, about half have given up their traditional landline phone. The Pew Internet Project's report on broadband adoption is based on the Project's March 2006 survey of 4,001 Americans, 1,562 of whom were home broadband users. Comparisons to March 2005 are based on the Project's combined January-March 2005 surveys of 4,402 adults, of whom1,265 were home broadband users. Data on user-generated content, monthly cost of service, and VoIP are drawn from the Project's December 2005 survey of 3,011 Americans, of whom 1,014 were home high-speed users. View full report -- Home Broadband Adoption 2006. (PDF format) http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/PIP_Broadband_0506.pdf The Pew Internet Project is a non-profit, non-partisan initiative of the Pew Research Center that produces reports exploring the impact of the Internet on children, families, communities, the work place, schools, health care, and civic/political life. Support for the non-profit Pew Internet Project is provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Source: Pew Link below;
[WISPA] This is HUGE!
Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FM Remote Broadcast over Wireless (RBOW ?)
I've been asked if an FM broadcast station can broadcast from a remote (non-studio) location by putting the audio over an existing license-free wireless network to connect back to the main studio. On the surface of it, I don't see why this wouldn't work as long as: 1. The wireless network is reliable, and 2. The remote FM audio stream can be converted to a half-duplex stream of Ethernet packets. Does anyone know of someone who has done this successfully and, if so, what equipment was used on both the audio and RF networks? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FM Remote Broadcast over Wireless (RBOW ?)
You could just convert to an IP stream and then convert back Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:30 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FM Remote Broadcast over Wireless (RBOW ?) I've been asked if an FM broadcast station can broadcast from a remote (non-studio) location by putting the audio over an existing license-free wireless network to connect back to the main studio. On the surface of it, I don't see why this wouldn't work as long as: 1. The wireless network is reliable, and 2. The remote FM audio stream can be converted to a half-duplex stream of Ethernet packets. Does anyone know of someone who has done this successfully and, if so, what equipment was used on both the audio and RF networks? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 05/29/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 05/29/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Patrick Leary wrote: You are right John, that is huge. As you and I have agreed, the old reported numbers many of us suspected were low due to A) the form 477 only used to require operators to file if they had 250 or more subs, which meant most WISPs did not have to file so their numbers were invisible and B) many WISPs still do not file. The previous conventional wisdom said that there were only about 500k-1m BWA subs. Glad to see these new numbers blow that old number out of the water. Patrick I wonder what it would be like if every wisp actually filed like they were supposed to. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FM Remote Broadcast over Wireless (RBOW ?)
Hi Jack,TheseareknownasStudioTransmitterLinks, and we've planned a few for our local radio conglomerates as the licensed 950 MHz STL space is rapidly melting down (who'd ever guess there could be so much interference in a licensed band!). Unlicensed is fine in many cases, but butanycommercialstationwithadvertisingdollarsatstakeshould look at licensed links and definitely needs fast-failovertoISDN,DSL,etc with adaptive codecs. Contact me off-list for more.Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
David - I agree with you as well... I would consider this report / poll to be bogus to the actual #s of Fixed Wireless subscribers. With that being said, perhaps this mistake will work in our favor :) Or against us :( JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FM Remote Broadcast over Wireless (RBOW ?)
Not sure what software they are using, but I provide a backup STL for a local FM station over my wireless network. I know they are running PCs on both ends and a proprietary software package on the PCs. If you need more information let me know and I'll ask the station manager. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: I've been asked if an FM broadcast station can broadcast from a remote (non-studio) location by putting the audio over an existing license-free wireless network to connect back to the main studio. On the surface of it, I don't see why this wouldn't work as long as: 1. The wireless network is reliable, and 2. The remote FM audio stream can be converted to a half-duplex stream of Ethernet packets. Does anyone know of someone who has done this successfully and, if so, what equipment was used on both the audio and RF networks? Thanks in advance, jack -- Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
30% of what number Charles? How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. I'd like to be able to toss around a better number if it can be substantiated, even anecdotally and unscientifically like an honor survey. Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
There's so much sloppy and inaccurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. So true Jack. I can't remember how many letters to the editor I have written seeking to correct articles. The latest being Friday when a local Silicon Valley paper (Mountain View Voice) carried a May 26 cover story in its business section that explained how Google's city wide wireless project in its home city of Mountain View worked. It said 350 Tropos mesh nodes ...will transmit to one of three aggregation points... What it forgot to mention is that there are about 50 Alvarion BreezeACCESS VL nodes and those are what connects to the three base stations around the city. So all the mesh connects to the BreezeACCESS VL, which is the NLOS metro wide multipoint backhaul for the project. [It can be argued that the backhaul is the critical piece since it defines how much capacity is actually available in the mesh. Also, a high capacity multipoint backhaul like BreezeACCESS VL requires much fewer total BH nodes, reducing the network CAPEX.] The funny thing is that the picture they carried shows the Google project leader presenting the network to the local community and businesses and in the background is a Power Point that has Alvarion's name on it. The slide in the image says, ...radios connects to the Internet via an Alvarion gateway that connects wirelessly to a base station. Fortunately, the Mountain View Voice, as a paper in the tech heart of the U.S., wants to get it right, so they will print my Letter to the Editor. I was especially glad to hear that since we have about 170 people working here in Mountain View! Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Charles said - P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone Probably close to true, though I believe a bit on the high side. We probably sold around $80M in UL last year out of our $195M total since our UL/licensed split has historically hovered about 60% licensed/ 40% UL. Not bad in the face of massive behemoth like Motorola. In the total combined market we still lead, but for sure the real test comes when all major TEMs field their own 802.16e-2005. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
snip Probably close to true, though I believe a bit on the high side. We probably sold around $80M in UL last year out of our $195M total since our UL/licensed split has historically hovered about 60% licensed/ 40% UL. Not bad in the face of massive behemoth like Motorola. /snip So -- you sold $80M in UL last year What percentage of the was in the US? Let's gestimate that 50% of your UL sales were in North America (which, IMO, might be a bit low, since Internationally, 5 GHz and 900 MHz is kinda @#$@ up) So we're at $40M total Not knowing you're exact numbers, lets say there's an even split between all product lines (e.g., Backhaul, 900 Mhz, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz) So 75% is PtMP Now we're at $30M Now, AP/CPE ratio -- not sure about Alvarion, but I remember from my equipment distribution days that we used to sell something like a 1:20 ratio -- Lets assume an average AP / infrastructure price of $2.5k, and an average CPE price of $500 - so using those numbers...about 20% of your sales revenue is APs, and 80% of your revenue is CPE 80% of $30M = $24M $24M / 500 = 48,000 CPE shipped into the US in 2005 alone How many Alvarion WISPs are there today still buying your product? If the number is 1,000 than that's an average of 480 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~2 CPE installation / day) If 2,000, then that's an average of 240 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~1 CPE installation / day) Over a 5 year time period (I would bet that many of your customers have been operating since 2001) -- that's a total of 2,000 WISPs w/ over 1,000 CPE installed Now, remember, you're Alvarion, and some of your customers have been installing these things since 1998... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Charles said - P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone In the total combined market we still lead, but for sure the real test comes when all major TEMs field their own 802.16e-2005. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Oh I know. Most of these guys have never posted. Many are local telcos, many are local utilities, some are rural cellular folks. Some are just fairly well-run start-ups. As I have cautioned many of times before, listers need to remember that they represent a small percentage of operators out there and they are not always even representative of the larger group of BWA operators. ...and folks over 10k CPE in the U.S.? You are right damn few and even fewer with a single, integrated network being fully managed. For example, Prairie Inet's network is a conglomeration of discontiguous networks, as is MobilePro's, U.S. Wireless Online, and the rest of aggregators. In the U.S., for us Midwest Wireless (bought by Alltel) is right about there, AMA*Techtel is over 5k. Verizon's CLEC arm is well over 3k. And there are a few more around 5k. I also believe Chuck's Beehive has a Canopy network with about 10k CPE. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:31 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
All, Unfortunately as Peter pointed out in a previous conversation about this most broadband consumers do not even know what they have for a connection. We won't even talk about the difference between the technologies used. As quoted from the report; Although speed matters for broadband users, few know exactly what connection speed they have at home; 17% said they knew their home connection speed, while 81% acknowledged ignorance. Recently announced, AT T has stepped up their advertising campaign. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-att-reaches-out-potential-customers-with-flurry-ads-/2006/05/25/1660118.htm Regards, Dawn DiPietro Jack Unger wrote: Hopefully, the 8% (6,000,000) figure includes ONLY end-users who use wireless broadband to get to/from their home and NOT the end-users who have a copper/fiber-based (cable/telco) broadband connection to their home and then use a Wi-Fi router/access point that provides the final 50-ft connection wirelessly. There's so much sloppy and innacurate journalism these days that I need reassurance that the article means what it appears to be saying. If there are 6,000,000 end-users and if there are 5000 WISPs then each WISP would, on average, have 1,200 subscribers. I'm not sure that this passes the sniff test. jack John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo! Scriv --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Thanks for the analysis Charles ;) You are right that most of the UL is in the U.S. I do not have the exact split of how much UL was in the U.S., but you are probably pretty close except on the split between PMP and backhaul in the U.S. The PMP part is probably around 85% of the U.S. number. You are right about our having some folks going back years. Maybe the longest example would Jason's Midcoast in Maine. Midcoast goes back at least to 1997. In addition to those, we have a pretty good crop of more recent operators that have moved upstream, so to speak. A prototypical example of one like that is Marty Dougherty's Roadstar Internet in Loudon County, VA. He transitioned upward twice from where he started in terms of vendor choice. We also have a healthy number of CLECs, especially post-DSL deregulation. To be fair though, there is also a number of smaller guys we have lost, mostly to purpose-built 802.11 such as old, honorable, but smaller stalwarts like Allen Marsalis's Shrevenet and Eje's business (who has transitioned more into a model where he sells products to other WISPs). Finally, selling through a two-tier distribution model means we sometimes lose some visibility, so it is not always easy to map out sales 100%. That said, we have to say, as would Moto, that not all CPE sales go to any type of WISP (or WiNOG), but rather go as PMP backhaul nodes for mesh deployments and a goodly number of CPE are now also shipping for public safety deployments. We now have several dozen cities under our belts and in none of those are we the edge access technology (except on the public safety side); we are the PMP backhaul. Good dialogue going here though. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! snip Probably close to true, though I believe a bit on the high side. We probably sold around $80M in UL last year out of our $195M total since our UL/licensed split has historically hovered about 60% licensed/ 40% UL. Not bad in the face of massive behemoth like Motorola. /snip So -- you sold $80M in UL last year What percentage of the was in the US? Let's gestimate that 50% of your UL sales were in North America (which, IMO, might be a bit low, since Internationally, 5 GHz and 900 MHz is kinda @#$@ up) So we're at $40M total Not knowing you're exact numbers, lets say there's an even split between all product lines (e.g., Backhaul, 900 Mhz, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz) So 75% is PtMP Now we're at $30M Now, AP/CPE ratio -- not sure about Alvarion, but I remember from my equipment distribution days that we used to sell something like a 1:20 ratio -- Lets assume an average AP / infrastructure price of $2.5k, and an average CPE price of $500 - so using those numbers...about 20% of your sales revenue is APs, and 80% of your revenue is CPE 80% of $30M = $24M $24M / 500 = 48,000 CPE shipped into the US in 2005 alone How many Alvarion WISPs are there today still buying your product? If the number is 1,000 than that's an average of 480 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~2 CPE installation / day) If 2,000, then that's an average of 240 CPE installed / WISP this year (or ~1 CPE installation / day) Over a 5 year time period (I would bet that many of your customers have been operating since 2001) -- that's a total of 2,000 WISPs w/ over 1,000 CPE installed Now, remember, you're Alvarion, and some of your customers have been installing these things since 1998... -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Charles said - P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold close to $100 million in gear last year alone In the total combined market we still lead, but for sure the real test comes when all major TEMs field their own 802.16e-2005. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Scriv, It is absolutely a step in the right direction considering all the other recent reports lump WISP's in with Satellite. Regards, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Peter, While true in the simple sense, for this industry that is not always the case at this point. You need to remember that the larger WISPs continue to convert revenue into CAPEX as they scale and seek to capture new markets. I know many operators that tell me if they stopped investing in new markets they would be pretty much instantly profitable at this point. This is especially true of newer entrants. Also, when BWA is but a PART of the total business (and that is USUALLY the case), you need to look at the wireless play within integrated business. For example, consider the long (good empirical data) example of Midwest Wireless, based in Mankato, MN. Midwest also has around 400k cellular subscribers. Interestingly, when Midwest bundles a cellular sub with BWA service, the cellular churn for that customer drops to almost literally zero. That has a direct impact on the total bottom line. Similar examples can be found throughout the industry. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Peter R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Indeed, and the Pew study is very credible, well circulated on the Hill, and used frequently as source material for other briefings and other reports. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers This is why we call them Wi- NOGs instead of ISPs nowadays Don't forget, a lot of rural telcos / CLECs / ILECs (e.g., the enemy) have gotten into license-exempt fixed wireless... -Charles P.S. - I heard a rumor that the current UL market leader, Motorola Canopy sold
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:34 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Some interesting statistics -- 30% of the WISPs who attended our last WiNOG claimed on their surveys they had been in the wireless business for more than 5 years and had more than 1k wireless CPE deployed in the field Less than 10% of them claimed to be pure-play license-exempt fixed wireless providers
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
No, not really. Our average RMC is similar to CBeyond, but the big difference is how much we keep of that RMC as it compares to CBeyond. CBeyond is still pumping dollars into their direct competitor (MaBell) and operators like us that own their own network do not. I know of ISPs like us all over the country that have similar RMC rates and have been very successful. We don't even consider deploying a radio for less than $200.00 RMC and that will typically require a setup fee that covers 90% of our upfront costs. Majority of the time we require a T1 commitment at $329.95 RMC before deploying. Like I've always said Patrick, the fewer radios we have in the air the better! lol This is not to knock the sub $100 RMC market. Clearly that is a model that has also been a proven winner when applied properly. We work closely with a dozen or more wISPs all of which have proven business models and all are successful. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo,
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I know I'm in a more rural area, but the only thing I have 17,000 of in my coverage area is cows, now if I could get the RFID thing going and do realtime tracking... ;) I'm curious how many WISPs would have the coverage area that would include even a possible 1000 T1s. I know that there are WISPs in larger metro areas but I've always had the opinion that the larger number of WISPs are rural. As for $495 for a T1, that is more than I'm charging and the 3meg that is being sold for $495 is best effort internet service I'm sure. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with only having high ARPU customers, if I could I would, but in my service area I couldn't make a business float only offering business services, hell, now that DSL is being offered it remains to be seen if I can make a residential and business WISP float. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Our APRU is currently at $669 and we have been raising that each quarter. The difference between us and CBeyond is that we don't pay any ILEC to delivery our service. Oh, and we don't have 17,000 customers... yet! BTW, our sales team has found it easier to sell $1000 services than $400. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to figure that one out... --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Two things I would offer in regard to your situation. First, there are plenty of businesses in rural areas that buy T1s from the ILEC right now. There may not be thousands, but it doesn't take that many high ARPU customers. Case in point; we recently entered a rural market that had two local ISPs of interest. One ISP was considered the most successful and had hundreds of customers. The other ISP had only 22 customers and was largely unknown. The later ISP had more revenue and was profitable with far fewer customers. Second, I am not sure I understand the logic of operating a business in a market that isn't favorable. I know plenty of people want to deliver underserved areas, but those areas are underserved for a reason. That reason could mean a greenfield opportunity awaits or it could just mean the area doesn't make economic sense. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: I know I'm in a more rural area, but the only thing I have 17,000 of in my coverage area is cows, now if I could get the RFID thing going and do realtime tracking... ;) I'm curious how many WISPs would have the coverage area that would include even a possible 1000 T1s. I know that there are WISPs in larger metro areas but I've always had the opinion that the larger number of WISPs are rural. As for $495 for a T1, that is more than I'm charging and the 3meg that is being sold for $495 is best effort internet service I'm sure. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with only having high ARPU customers, if I could I would, but in my service area I couldn't make a business float only offering business services, hell, now that DSL is being offered it remains to be seen if I can make a residential and business WISP float. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Actually, I've begun to notice the same thing. A couple of our current customers bought some customized web programming from us for 1000's and we just took a stab in midair... ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Our APRU is currently at $669 and we have been raising that each quarter. The difference between us and CBeyond is that we don't pay any ILEC to delivery our service. Oh, and we don't have 17,000 customers... yet! BTW, our sales team has found it easier to sell $1000 services than $400. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still trying to
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Trying to price service like that in my market would result in an ARPU of $0. Been there, done that with the licensed LMDS players that bought my first ISP. They laughed at our 802.11 radios as baby monitors. The LMDS equipment is long gone, and unlicensed wireless broadband is now the dominant form of broadband in my market. Chalk up another loss for the too-smart east-coasters that thought they would come into sticksville and take the market over. All of the easy pickings T1 customers are long gone, other than a few banks and others that can't switch or don't want to switch to anything else. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Liotta wrote: Our APRU is currently at $669 and we have been raising that each quarter. The difference between us and CBeyond is that we don't pay any ILEC to delivery our service. Oh, and we don't have 17,000 customers... yet! BTW, our sales team has found it easier to sell $1000 services than $400. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Yes. But I do not believe it. I don't see how the GAO can get it that wrong, less than a 10th of a percent compared to 8%. There is no way Fixed Wireless has 8% of the market share. They must be including subscribers that have installed Wifi SoHo routers behind their Cable or DSL modems. The last thing we want is the world falsely believing that we are equivellent providers compared to Cable and DSL, based on economy of scale. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:35 PM Subject: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. That means you guys! Woo Hoo!Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
On 5/30/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right about our having some folks going back years. Maybe thelongest example would Jason's Midcoast in Maine. Midcoast goes back at leastto 1997. In addition to those, we have a pretty good crop of more recent operators that have moved upstream, so to speak. A prototypical example ofone like that is Marty Dougherty's Roadstar Internet in Loudon County, VA.He transitioned upward twice from where he started in terms of vendor choice. We also have a healthy number of CLECs, especially post-DSLderegulation.Patrick,If you don't mind, please elucidate us (me) on the subject of upward mobility in the BWIA foodchain..I'mintriguedbythetermvendorchoice - whatare the criteria? What are the benefits of assumed standing? Whatpatternsdoyouseeinthesuccessandfailureofnetworkoperators? Thanks,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I am working on the dedicated bandwidth market and was making some headway until Qwest rolled out their DSL services at the begining of the month and now it is the education process all over again. Trying to explain that 3-7 meg DSL is NOT the same quality as a dedicated 1.5 meg circuit. But they still look at $475/T1 vs $80/DSL and think hey if I get only half of the DSL speed I'm still way ahead, and right now the DSL is new enough that congestion is not an issue. As for my market, until DSL was brought in, it has been a profitable business, I wasn't planning on retiring on just that business but it was paying the bills including my salary. Now instead of me being the only broadband provider that provided any real bandwidth I now have 2 other active DSL competitors and several others that provide DSL statewide. I'm not saying my market is now unfavorable, just that I'm not sure what is going to happen in terms of growth. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Two things I would offer in regard to your situation. First, there are plenty of businesses in rural areas that buy T1s from the ILEC right now. There may not be thousands, but it doesn't take that many high ARPU customers. Case in point; we recently entered a rural market that had two local ISPs of interest. One ISP was considered the most successful and had hundreds of customers. The other ISP had only 22 customers and was largely unknown. The later ISP had more revenue and was profitable with far fewer customers. Second, I am not sure I understand the logic of operating a business in a market that isn't favorable. I know plenty of people want to deliver underserved areas, but those areas are underserved for a reason. That reason could mean a greenfield opportunity awaits or it could just mean the area doesn't make economic sense. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: I know I'm in a more rural area, but the only thing I have 17,000 of in my coverage area is cows, now if I could get the RFID thing going and do realtime tracking... ;) I'm curious how many WISPs would have the coverage area that would include even a possible 1000 T1s. I know that there are WISPs in larger metro areas but I've always had the opinion that the larger number of WISPs are rural. As for $495 for a T1, that is more than I'm charging and the 3meg that is being sold for $495 is best effort internet service I'm sure. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with only having high ARPU customers, if I could I would, but in my service area I couldn't make a business float only offering business services, hell, now that DSL is being offered it remains to be seen if I can make a residential and business WISP float. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I wouldn't count on DSL getting slower or being lower quality. Qwest has some of the highest quality bandwidth in the business. Granted that is changing now with the MCI and ATT deals. But, those independent DSL providers who wholesale access from the RBOC and couple it with Cogent are the ones delivering a low grade product. The difference between DSL and a T1 that a business should care about isn't the quality of the service when it is working; it is the uptime of the service and how long it takes to fix it when it goes down. I don't know how many DSL customers are put on a single DSLAM, but when it goes down it takes every single one with it from residential to business; guaranteed bandwidth to best effort... all down. And all of those customers will be fixed at the exact same time. Other differences come up such as application concerns considering DSL is asymmetrical and latency can be variable. My point is that if a business just needs to surf the web and check email, doesn't care about extended outages, and doesn't need to upload at high speed or use VoIP with consistent quality then DSL is a pretty good option. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: I am working on the dedicated bandwidth market and was making some headway until Qwest rolled out their DSL services at the begining of the month and now it is the education process all over again. Trying to explain that 3-7 meg DSL is NOT the same quality as a dedicated 1.5 meg circuit. But they still look at $475/T1 vs $80/DSL and think hey if I get only half of the DSL speed I'm still way ahead, and right now the DSL is new enough that congestion is not an issue. As for my market, until DSL was brought in, it has been a profitable business, I wasn't planning on retiring on just that business but it was paying the bills including my salary. Now instead of me being the only broadband provider that provided any real bandwidth I now have 2 other active DSL competitors and several others that provide DSL statewide. I'm not saying my market is now unfavorable, just that I'm not sure what is going to happen in terms of growth. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Two things I would offer in regard to your situation. First, there are plenty of businesses in rural areas that buy T1s from the ILEC right now. There may not be thousands, but it doesn't take that many high ARPU customers. Case in point; we recently entered a rural market that had two local ISPs of interest. One ISP was considered the most successful and had hundreds of customers. The other ISP had only 22 customers and was largely unknown. The later ISP had more revenue and was profitable with far fewer customers. Second, I am not sure I understand the logic of operating a business in a market that isn't favorable. I know plenty of people want to deliver underserved areas, but those areas are underserved for a reason. That reason could mean a greenfield opportunity awaits or it could just mean the area doesn't make economic sense. -Matt Sam Tetherow wrote: I know I'm in a more rural area, but the only thing I have 17,000 of in my coverage area is cows, now if I could get the RFID thing going and do realtime tracking... ;) I'm curious how many WISPs would have the coverage area that would include even a possible 1000 T1s. I know that there are WISPs in larger metro areas but I've always had the opinion that the larger number of WISPs are rural. As for $495 for a T1, that is more than I'm charging and the 3meg that is being sold for $495 is best effort internet service I'm sure. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with only having high ARPU customers, if I could I would, but in my service area I couldn't make a business float only offering business services, hell, now that DSL is being offered it remains to be seen if I can make a residential and business WISP float. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o:
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Or they measure in ARPU to mask profitabilty. A higher ARPU subs is not always more profitable. Average ARPU also does not show retention rate. Having an average ARPU of $700 buck does not do any good if they are only a customer for 6 months, if they end up being disatisfied after the fact. Nor is a higher ARPU that much better if the world has to be given away to get the $700 ARPU. Getting an ARPU of $700 for a T1 speed line is pretty darn impressive. But not neessarilly so, if 20mbps links need to be given away to get it, meaning less growth possibilty. And a reoccurring cost following the ARPU longer. (Not that I'm saying high ARPU is not good.) I think their are more important factors like, Time till ROI? Profit during that time, and anticipated profit per year after that time (ROI). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
8% means... You do not get preferrential treatment in legislation. You do not get subsidees to foster growth of a startup industry. You get taxed equally as telcos and cable companies. ISPs have a viable alternative, so LECs no longer need to share their networks with ISPs. 8% is a HUGE percentage of market share. I'm not sure we want to take credit for that. At this stage I think it could work against us. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Are you sure about that. I was told we were not lumped in with Satelite. We were not listed as the volume was not large enough to get a percentage point. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Scriv, It is absolutely a step in the right direction considering all the other recent reports lump WISP's in with Satellite. Regards, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net --- --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Its also easier getting roof rights, when the request comes from a large tenant, who is likely the prospect for $1000 rates. I find larger ARPU models are more predicatable, allthough more work is involved in finding the prospect base. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Our APRU is currently at $669 and we have been raising that each quarter. The difference between us and CBeyond is that we don't pay any ILEC to delivery our service. Oh, and we don't have 17,000 customers... yet! BTW, our sales team has found it easier to sell $1000 services than $400. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of people nowadays have over 1,000 CPE installed, ALMOST NONE have been able to successfully scale beyond the 10,000 CPE level -- still
[WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com
Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with www.hyperlinktech.com. They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
If nothing else, it is certainly easier to pay for the roof rights when the revenue is worth it. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: Its also easier getting roof rights, when the request comes from a large tenant, who is likely the prospect for $1000 rates. I find larger ARPU models are more predicatable, allthough more work is involved in finding the prospect base. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Our APRU is currently at $669 and we have been raising that each quarter. The difference between us and CBeyond is that we don't pay any ILEC to delivery our service. Oh, and we don't have 17,000 customers... yet! BTW, our sales team has found it easier to sell $1000 services than $400. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything smaller than a 20-pack -Charles P.S. -- now another interesting statistics is the top-end of the license-exempt operator market -- although a lot of
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Tom, There is no such thing as average profit per sub after ROI period. Let me give an example: I lease all my CPE. It is a recurring monthly debt that will never go away. Even after 3 years, when I own the CPE, there will be new CPE that needs purchased... and thus new towers, new AP's, new backhauls, new routers, new bandwidth, new whatever. Even if I move that paid for CPE to a new customer on the edges of my network, there are still costs mentioned above for that customer. Maybe I'm not thinking the same as you, but I can never see an after ROI period. It never happens. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Matt, Ok. Let me clarify my statement. It depends on wether you are valuing a company considering... wether its your money getting invested or someone elses. Finding a buyer to pay the price based on no profit potential, and trading publically, are two totally different animals. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
IN 2.4Ghz you have the 3-1 rule and a very high noisefloor, practically everywhere. On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:23:22 -0400, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. - Jeff On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards flaunting the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test a single base station? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Yes but Vonage is also a poor example of your arguement as 75% of their expendatures is in advertising. That means 75% of their expendatures could be stopped on demand immediately, without reducing revenue. How quickly could Vonage become profitable, when they reach the approrpiate scale, and they stop marketing? I haven't done the math, but it paints a different picture of potential profitabilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com
I have had no problems. I only purchased a few selected panel and grid antennas but with no issues and products seem to work well. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rudolph Worrell Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with www.hyperlinktech.com. They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
As I stated, In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. In other words, if they stop marketing they aren't profitable. Worse, their valuation is based on growth, which they won't get without marketing. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: Yes but Vonage is also a poor example of your arguement as 75% of their expendatures is in advertising. That means 75% of their expendatures could be stopped on demand immediately, without reducing revenue. How quickly could Vonage become profitable, when they reach the approrpiate scale, and they stop marketing? I haven't done the math, but it paints a different picture of potential profitabilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com
We buy several products from them. I have always had good dealings with them. They seem to always have stock on products and ship when and how they say. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:16 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com I have had no problems. I only purchased a few selected panel and grid antennas but with no issues and products seem to work well. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rudolph Worrell Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with www.hyperlinktech.com. They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Travis, Excellent point. My suggestion does not match your model. My model is different, as I am the financers of our radio equipment. I've paid cash in full upfront for every radio. My cash flow model sucks, but at the end of the first year, its all profit. (All our sales must be a 1 year or less total ROI to accept.) (Well maybe not all profit as there is maintenance and support). The point I was making is that not all business model have the reoccurring cost proportional to the revenue for life. Some business models allow for teh reoccuring costs to go away after a certain time, or atleast not to continue to grow at the same rate as the revenue does. This is when profits are realized. For example in our business model we had huge upfront tower leases. It was tough, and showed negatively on our books. But now that I have them covered in my cash flow positive business, I can continue to grow my customer base without continueing to increase my tower lease costs. Therefore allowing for a higher rate of profitabilty later in the road. Another example is our routers. We spend a lot of money on RD for our routers, and in our growth stage we lost financially. Not enough volume to recognize the savings of owning the intellectual property of our own routers. However, as we grow our client base, our costs for router equipment does not grow with it, as they scale to high capacity and the cost involved to add new routers is cheap now, since a large poirtion of the RD stage is over. So maybe a better way to evaluate is... Total profit per sub, based on the life of the CPE??? If you finance your CPE for 3 years, and your business model estimates a CPE replacement every three years, you could ask your self what percentage of the revenue over 3 years is profit after paying the CPE lease? Or what ever criteria you want to use for cost. When other companiess were looking to buy us, we put a higher value on our subs, as it took less cost to maintain the revenue long term. Anotherway to look at it is You can't look at a company's profitabilty based on totals to date, bundling all years. You must seperate the years. The total profit that can be made over 5 years from the subs that were installed this year is This allows the consideration of total company costs. But does not allow the higher growth rate spending to scew the perception of the companies successes. Or maybe another way to word this is Average ARPU means nothing, unless it is disclosed with additional data that shows Average Cost Per User. I don't care how the financial model is structured, as long as the revenues and costs are considered in the same manner, and can be compared to determine average profit. Ultimately determining the rate at whcih average profit per users grows or drops will define a companioes long term profitabilty or viabilty to stay alive. Its also possible a model will result in a decrease in profit, if retails prices drop in the future due to competition, or higher failure rate is acheived than anticipated. This is the whole concept of VC lending. That in 5 years one will ahve atleast 500% return on investment. Meaning as a company grows, it has the ability to become more profitable. Matt, used an example of Vonage, that did not show profits. But if that were the case with all investments VCs would not be in business. A certain percentage of them do very well and are very profitable. Thats what VCs are banking on. Some will be highly profitable. A company that is highly profitable, and does not sacrifice in other areas, will most likely sell for higher. Not in all cases, as profitabilty can be used to mislead the status of a company. For example if necessary upgrades are bypassed to show higher profitabilty, when in truth its neglect resulting in reliabilty and performance being sacrificed. A run down network so to speak. Thats why I think there is no real answer on how to evaluate a company based on jsut comparing wether a number is higher than another in one specific area. A successfull business is one that has many areas that are balanced as far as numbers reached. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Tom, There is no such thing as average profit per sub after ROI period. Let me give an example: I lease all my CPE. It is a recurring monthly debt that will never go away. Even after 3 years, when I own the CPE, there will be new CPE that needs purchased... and thus new towers, new AP's, new backhauls, new routers, new bandwidth, new whatever. Even if I move that paid for CPE to a new customer on the edges of my network, there are still costs mentioned above for that customer. Maybe I'm not thinking the same as you, but
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Ouch. Its got to make you want to throw up, doesn't it. Its amazing what companies get away with financially. It makes you wonder, about the intelligence of the investors. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! As I stated, In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. In other words, if they stop marketing they aren't profitable. Worse, their valuation is based on growth, which they won't get without marketing. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: Yes but Vonage is also a poor example of your arguement as 75% of their expendatures is in advertising. That means 75% of their expendatures could be stopped on demand immediately, without reducing revenue. How quickly could Vonage become profitable, when they reach the approrpiate scale, and they stop marketing? I haven't done the math, but it paints a different picture of potential profitabilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of
RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
By the way folks, this is a great and meaningful thread on an important topic. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Yes but Vonage is also a poor example of your arguement as 75% of their expendatures is in advertising. That means 75% of their expendatures could be stopped on demand immediately, without reducing revenue. How quickly could Vonage become profitable, when they reach the approrpiate scale, and they stop marketing? I haven't done the math, but it paints a different picture of potential profitabilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! You make a logical point, but the market seems to disagree. Take the recent Vonage IPO as an example. By all accounts the IPO was a disaster. They offered their shares at $17 and it is now trading $13. From the financials it is clear --at least to me-- that Vonage has no future hope of profitability. Yet, they managed convince enough people to raise $500M and while their market cap has dropped from $2.6B, it is still $2B, which isn't bad considering. I mean this is a company that spends $279 per customer to acquire each one, which means it takes over 11 months just to recoup the marketing costs. In 2005, they acquired 870,000 new customers, which even if they had acquired for free they still wouldn't represent enough revenue to pay for operations. This company simply will not survive and their financials show it. Yet, their market value is entirely based on their revenue and its ability to grow. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company. -Matt Peter R. wrote: Because number of subs is the measuring stick. Revenue is more important; but profit is the most important. Not many can speak to profit, so they measure in subs. - Peter Matt Liotta wrote: Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com
They have to only 24db 2.4GHz grid I will use. Reliable and easy to deal with. I have also had very good luck with their 5.8GHz 25-27db girds. Used to buy their amps, still have a lot in the system, but, IMO, www.rflinx.com makes a better amp. Pricey, but worth it. -- Rudolph Worrell wrote: Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with www.hyperlinktech.com. They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Here is an example of a ROI period ending. I put in a $500/mo T1 and rent a $100/mo tower space. My fixed costs are $600/mo I put in a $1000 AP and router, and buy 100 $200 CPE. I am now $21000 in the hole. Each customer is paying me $50/mo. ($5000/mo total) My ROI is 5 months, and my fixed cost per customer is $6 (upstream bandwidth and tower rent), leaving me $32/mo ($3200) after ROI profit. That's all fine and good if this is your hobby, and you are not trying to make a living at this. I just need 5 of these towers/AP's/model to pay for salaries, trucks, replacement CPE, installers, tools, and trips to conventions and trade shows. I also need 3 more of these towers to pay interest on the bank note from borrowing the original $21,000, which was more like $200,000 by the time we over-spent, under planned, over estimated the demand, underestimated the costs, overestimated the employees abilities to work, underestimated the damage that lighting can cause, and so on and so forth. I also need 7 more of these towers to offset the cost of not actually installing 100 clients on day 1, and not getting $100 tower rent, not getting 100 clients per AP, and not getting $200 CPE, and to offset the deadbeats who write hot checks, paying the cell phone bill, buy the fender when an antenna falls off of the roof during an install, buy the insurance to pay for it next time, buy new PCs, put tires on the trucks, change the oil, buying a mail server, buying another server to remove the spam from the first mail server, buying spare servers, routers, tools, and paying consultants when I cannot figure it out. Then I need another 14 towers to pay for the psychotherapist when go nuts trying to manage 2900 subscribers, who are all bitching and moaning because their PC has a virus, or their kid is downloading porn, or maybe they are getting spam, or they can't get their bittorrent client to download more than 500kbps. I am not there yet. We are still working on getting tower number 7 online, and installing customer number 350'ish, and I am not on the mood altering drugs... yet. Eventually, there is a model there for making money in this business somewhere between the hobby stage and the looney bin. The ways to do that should be the same as any other business whether you are selling internet, real estate, health care, computers, or donuts. 1: Time is money, so don't waste time or money. 2. Don't cut corners. 3. Don't piss off the customers. Pete Davis NoDial.net Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, There is no such thing as average profit per sub after ROI period. Let me give an example: I lease all my CPE. It is a recurring monthly debt that will never go away. Even after 3 years, when I own the CPE, there will be new CPE that needs purchased... and thus new towers, new AP's, new backhauls, new routers, new bandwidth, new whatever. Even if I move that paid for CPE to a new customer on the edges of my network, there are still costs mentioned above for that customer. Maybe I'm not thinking the same as you, but I can never see an after ROI period. It never happens. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later year, the expendatures are far greater than the revenue comming in from the samller customer base taken on the first 4 years. Thus, it appears the company is losing money and not profiting. When in actuallity, the company has record high success. All pre-existing subs ARE 100% profitable, and lot of new growth has been made to replicate the previous years successful model. So yes, profitable books may mean a company is not growing and not making new sales. However, showing the average profit per sub, after the ROI period is a VERY relevant bit of information. Its what defines the value of the business model in my mind. In other words: Forcasted Profit margin based on current years proven track record. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Profit is irrelevant for an early stage growth company.
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
This discussion always fascinates me, as almost my entire market is rural and residential. I have just 3% business customers right now. The entire rest is residential. I have never formally surveyed my customers, less than 10% spend $100 or on internet / phone / data services, but I would say that unless I was selling cellular, I could not get to $100 per customer. They just won't spend that much. Now, if we throw in TV to the mix, I could get there... But so far, that's not really been an option to us small operators. However, satellite TV is well established here, and if you're cheap, there's plenty of over the air broadcasting, including community owned translator system. Instead, what I'm seeing, is that my customers are dropping landlines, and going with VOIP voice services, and cellular.This means that most of them are getting voice, long distance, and broadband for the same or less than it used to cost for dialup. In fact, my best advertising has been a multilevel marketing group selling VOIP in my area, and they suggest my wireless system for internet instead of cable or standalone dsl. If the FCC had not thrown the 911 monkeywrench into it, I'd have found a way to roll my own VOIP service and we'd have been selling it at only a slight markup, just to be an added value to my broadband. I learned long ago, that sustainable businesses are built upon offering people 3 things: 1. what they need. 2. Getting thier money's worth. 3. Priced reasonably. And I like to add #4... A decent relationship with your customer - listen, talk, be a friend and loyal to them. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona, AZ alone (middle of no-where in Northern AZ mountains), w/ a total population of ~15k, there are 2 Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE? (and there's also cable and DSL competition in town too) Even at the end of my equipment distribution days (late 2004), I had at least 50 customers whom I'd been working with over the years who had purchased over 1,000 CPE from me...I know for sure that most of these guys are still operating and in business If you think about it, 1,000 isn't all that much -- take a look at the numbers If you've been a WISP since 2001, and you've been steadily buying CPE / installing 20 net new customers (minus churn, etc) / month (~ 1 install / working day / month), in over 5 years time (e.g., today in 2006), you'd have 1,200 customers Nowadays, w/ $150-$200 turn-key WISP CPE pricing (Motorola, Tranzeo, Trango), it's hard to even buy CPE in anything
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Interesting. My highest priced service level is only $65. I have about 80/20 percent mix $38 / $25 per mo customers. I have only 2 that exceed $40 / mo. This is what my business model was built on. I expect that at 500 customers, I will have a really decent paycheck and pretty solid stream of reinvestment at the same time. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! No, not really. Our average RMC is similar to CBeyond, but the big difference is how much we keep of that RMC as it compares to CBeyond. CBeyond is still pumping dollars into their direct competitor (MaBell) and operators like us that own their own network do not. I know of ISPs like us all over the country that have similar RMC rates and have been very successful. We don't even consider deploying a radio for less than $200.00 RMC and that will typically require a setup fee that covers 90% of our upfront costs. Majority of the time we require a T1 commitment at $329.95 RMC before deploying. Like I've always said Patrick, the fewer radios we have in the air the better! lol This is not to knock the sub $100 RMC market. Clearly that is a model that has also been a proven winner when applied properly. We work closely with a dozen or more wISPs all of which have proven business models and all are successful. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Not sure why the number of customers is even important when the quality of customers can vary so wildly. I run into WISPs regularly whose ARPU is barely above $100. At 1000 customers an ARPU of $100 is only $1.2M per year. That's a lot of radios and a lot of customers for very little revenue. Compare this to CBeyond, which is an Atlanta-based CLEC that in recent time went public. Today they have about 17,000 customers, but their ARPU is $761. With just 1000 customers, an ARPU of $761 would be worth $9.1M. Or to look at it a different way, with 17,000 customers an ARPU of $100 would only be $20.4M compared with the $155.2M they pull in now. A WISP would be wise to raise their ARPU as opposed to the number of customers. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: 30% of what number Charles? At the last show, 500+ attended representing about 350ish operators Of these, about 40% responded Unfortunately, we have a confidentiality agreement with our survey respondents, so I cannot list names How many WISPs said they have over 1,000 CPE. I can only think of about 20 with that high a number. A recent Tim Saunders article in BBW World alone that showed about 40+ Wireless Network Operators w/ 1,000+ CPE (and there are a lot more that Tim missed) Keep in mind, the majority of these operators no longer actively participate in these list-servs, most of em are busy out in the field installing customers / running their businesses =) Did you know that in Sedona,
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Sorry TomI am going to drive a truck through your remarks here. :-) Tom DeReggi wrote: 8% means... You do not get preferrential treatment in legislation. 8% means that 8% of the people are using our service which means that our politicians have to look at how to serve the needs of those customers. It is not about us. It is about our customers. That is the job of public servants. You do not get subsidees to foster growth of a startup industry. Wrong. Grants, loans, etc. are based on needs of CUSTOMERS not of providers. USDA does not care if you get broadband to Farmer Dan via a string between two tin cans if it works. By the way, I was the first broadband in my town, we are not a startup industry any more. You get taxed equally as telcos and cable companies. Do you really think tax policy is different if you serve 8% than if you serve 1/2%? I assure you if the broadband tax cometh, you will be paying, regardless of how many customers you serve. ISPs have a viable alternative, so LECs no longer need to share their networks with ISPs. scriv laughing Like ATT is so open with their network? PLEASE! 8% is a HUGE percentage of market share. I'm not sure we want to take credit for that. At this stage I think it could work against us. There is only good that can come from people thinking 8% of the US is getting their service from us. We have been on the radar for a long time. Now it is time to deliver broadband over that radar! (That reminds me...where is that 5.4 GHz band!) :-) Scriv Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! The point is we have a well known, if not largely credible source, who has just released a report that says we (Fixed Wireless Broadband Providers) are serving the broadband needs of approximately 8% of US home users. We obviously have been completely ignored in other reports and surveys so for once it is nice to see us represented in some statistically important degree. I am not really that concerned about the exact number of customers. It is just nice to see us making the report in some meaningful way. Scriv David E. Smith wrote: John Scrivner wrote: Check this out from the Pew report. It appears that fixed wireless is much bigger than what even I thought. According to this report 8% of all broadband connections in the US are delivered via fixed broadband wireless. Ouch. That study looks to be horribly methodologically flawed. (It's at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf if you're interested.) Their survey required the responders to know what they were talking about -- if you have DSL, but a wireless router/access point, and you're not all that technically competent, you may well say your laptop has wireless Internet access when that's not quite what they intended. Here's the question they asked: Does the computer you use at home connect to the internet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection, such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection? That question gives me a headache, and I'd like to think I do know what I'm talking about most of the time. Note that their survey only had about 1500 Internet-using responders, which is jst barely enough to be considered a statistically valid sample for a population of a couple hundred million. (Their methodology is a bit vague on whether they're sampling all Americans, or just adults, or...) Don't get me wrong; it's an exciting quote. I just hope everyone takes it with the proper perspective, and realizes that it's probably high by some unknowable order of magnitude. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Hyperlinktech.com
We were banned from doing business with them because we requested a return once. Not kidding. Scriv Rudolph Worrell wrote: Can someone give me their honest opinion about doing business with www.hyperlinktech.com. They seem to have a great deal of antennas and cable but I am not sure they are WISP friendly as odd as that seems. - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Hi, I think that's the #1 mistake that small or startup operators make: Time is money, so don't waste time or money. I hear stories of people literally spending hours and hours and hours building something because they don't want to pay $xxx for it already built. Everyone reading this list should remember - Your time is worth something. For some it may be $10/hour and for others it may be $200/hour. The question you have to always ask is Can I generate more income by doing it myself, or having it already done so I can work on . Quick example: You can spend 3-4 hours building a new email server for your network (hardware cost=$500). Or you can buy a ready to run mail server for $1,000. However, if you could generate 5 new clients in that same amount of time each paying $40 per month, you just wasted your time. The 5 clients will pay for that extra $500 in less than 6 months (after costs, etc.) and you will be making more money in the long run. Time is money... don't waste time. :) Travis Microserv Pete Davis wrote: Here is an example of a ROI period ending. I put in a $500/mo T1 and rent a $100/mo tower space. My fixed costs are $600/mo I put in a $1000 AP and router, and buy 100 $200 CPE. I am now $21000 in the hole. Each customer is paying me $50/mo. ($5000/mo total) My ROI is 5 months, and my fixed cost per customer is $6 (upstream bandwidth and tower rent), leaving me $32/mo ($3200) after ROI profit. That's all fine and good if this is your hobby, and you are not trying to make a living at this. I just need 5 of these towers/AP's/model to pay for salaries, trucks, replacement CPE, installers, tools, and trips to conventions and trade shows. I also need 3 more of these towers to pay interest on the bank note from borrowing the original $21,000, which was more like $200,000 by the time we over-spent, under planned, over estimated the demand, underestimated the costs, overestimated the employees abilities to work, underestimated the damage that lighting can cause, and so on and so forth. I also need 7 more of these towers to offset the cost of not actually installing 100 clients on day 1, and not getting $100 tower rent, not getting 100 clients per AP, and not getting $200 CPE, and to offset the deadbeats who write hot checks, paying the cell phone bill, buy the fender when an antenna falls off of the roof during an install, buy the insurance to pay for it next time, buy new PCs, put tires on the trucks, change the oil, buying a mail server, buying another server to remove the spam from the first mail server, buying spare servers, routers, tools, and paying consultants when I cannot figure it out. Then I need another 14 towers to pay for the psychotherapist when go nuts trying to manage 2900 subscribers, who are all bitching and moaning because their PC has a virus, or their kid is downloading porn, or maybe they are getting spam, or they can't get their bittorrent client to download more than 500kbps. I am not there yet. We are still working on getting tower number 7 online, and installing customer number 350'ish, and I am not on the mood altering drugs... yet. Eventually, there is a model there for making money in this business somewhere between the hobby stage and the looney bin. The ways to do that should be the same as any other business whether you are selling internet, real estate, health care, computers, or donuts. 1: Time is money, so don't waste time or money. 2. Don't cut corners. 3. Don't piss off the customers. Pete Davis NoDial.net Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, There is no such thing as average profit per sub after ROI period. Let me give an example: I lease all my CPE. It is a recurring monthly debt that will never go away. Even after 3 years, when I own the CPE, there will be new CPE that needs purchased... and thus new towers, new AP's, new backhauls, new routers, new bandwidth, new whatever. Even if I move that paid for CPE to a new customer on the edges of my network, there are still costs mentioned above for that customer. Maybe I'm not thinking the same as you, but I can never see an after ROI period. It never happens. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is relevant, as far as how much profit will be made per sub, and how soon. Profitabilty can be misleading when jsut considering accounting paperwork (profit loss / balance sheets) I'll give an example: Lets say a company gets an ROI in 1 year. And had 4 years of selling subs. And by the 4th year, profit would be being made from each sub. But then lets says a company had a 100% growth spurt in the 5th year. And lets say there is a 1 year ROI, meaning 12 dollars needs to be spent for ever new dollar that is made. Because the growth rate of the company is so much higher in the later
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
I have a spreadsheet that I've developed that gives me 5 years of projected monthly costs/revenue/running costs/running revenue/cost per subscriber/debt paydown. It summarizes to 5-year pl, 5-year debt, 5-year business value (1xannual), 5-year resale value (business value-debt). It does not take into account everything...just: - Existing subs (starting point) - average sub monthly fee - Projected subs/month - any admin cost per sub that you want to put in - CPE cost (estimate high) - installation fee per new sub - referral/commission/discount per new sub - cost to sub out installation of new sub - bandwidth per mb - subs per mb (auto-calculates in the monthly costs as # of subs grow) - cost of tech support person - subs per tech support person (again, auto-calculates) - as an option, monthly amount per sub to outsource tech support - monthly overhead costs (advertising, rent, insurance, etc) - annual overhead costs - special project income (other income and expenses for the project(s)) That might be all. Hit me off-list and I'll let you have it, without my info, of course. I've gotten over the idea that cash flow is everything. Cash flow is alot, but not everything. It took me quite awhile to realize that I should put in the info about business value. This thing lets me play with numbers that affect the profit and loss AS WELL AS the VALUE of my business, which is important to look at over time. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Interesting. My highest priced service level is only $65. I have about 80/20 percent mix $38 / $25 per mo customers. I have only 2 that exceed $40 / mo. This is what my business model was built on. I expect that at 500 customers, I will have a really decent paycheck and pretty solid stream of reinvestment at the same time. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! No, not really. Our average RMC is similar to CBeyond, but the big difference is how much we keep of that RMC as it compares to CBeyond. CBeyond is still pumping dollars into their direct competitor (MaBell) and operators like us that own their own network do not. I know of ISPs like us all over the country that have similar RMC rates and have been very successful. We don't even consider deploying a radio for less than $200.00 RMC and that will typically require a setup fee that covers 90% of our upfront costs. Majority of the time we require a T1 commitment at $329.95 RMC before deploying. Like I've always said Patrick, the fewer radios we have in the air the better! lol This is not to knock the sub $100 RMC market. Clearly that is a model that has also been a proven winner when applied properly. We work closely with a dozen or more wISPs all of which have proven business models and all are successful. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:15 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] This is HUGE! I stand corrected, fair enough Matt, but wow. That's pretty rich monthly rates and an especially rich ARPU. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE! Again, pointing to CBeyonds numbers it is clear that their average customer is not buying big TDM pipes or fiber-based services. Their starting package is $495 per month, which is just a single T1, while their next package up --which is priced higher than their ARPU-- is $895, which is just two T1s. That's 17,000 high ARPU customers delivering services that technologically are easy for WISPs. There are operators on this list that will sell a customer 3 megs or more of service for less than $495 per month. I'm not saying there isn't a market for low ARPU customers, but the scale required to make any real money seems like quite a challenge. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Any operator with some decent residential mix would be drooling to have a $100 ARPU Matt. No matter what technology is being used, that makes for an excellent ROI. Those CLECs you mention are also likely providing fiber and big TDM pipes as a primary focus. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080
Re: [WISPA] This is HUGE!
Pretty good point there Travis. I would say the reason some get stuck in that frame of mind is because when some people start out in their business, whether its a wisp business or a widget business they start that way because they don't have much money but plenty of time. So they figure they can stretch their money by using their spare time. Maybe in the very early days that might be true, but once a business gets going, then they have to shift their frame of mind. Being able to realize this early is a key to growth and success. My opinion. George Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I think that's the #1 mistake that small or startup operators make: Time is money, so don't waste time or money. I hear stories of people literally spending hours and hours and hours building something because they don't want to pay $xxx for it already built. Everyone reading this list should remember - Your time is worth something. For some it may be $10/hour and for others it may be $200/hour. The question you have to always ask is Can I generate more income by doing it myself, or having it already done so I can work on . Quick example: You can spend 3-4 hours building a new email server for your network (hardware cost=$500). Or you can buy a ready to run mail server for $1,000. However, if you could generate 5 new clients in that same amount of time each paying $40 per month, you just wasted your time. The 5 clients will pay for that extra $500 in less than 6 months (after costs, etc.) and you will be making more money in the long run. Time is money... don't waste time. :) Travis Microserv Pete Davis wrote: Here is an example of a ROI period ending. I put in a $500/mo T1 and rent a $100/mo tower space. My fixed costs are $600/mo I put in a $1000 AP and router, and buy 100 $200 CPE. I am now $21000 in the hole. Each customer is paying me $50/mo. ($5000/mo total) My ROI is 5 months, and my fixed cost per customer is $6 (upstream bandwidth and tower rent), leaving me $32/mo ($3200) after ROI profit. That's all fine and good if this is your hobby, and you are not trying to make a living at this. I just need 5 of these towers/AP's/model to pay for salaries, trucks, replacement CPE, installers, tools, and trips to conventions and trade shows. I also need 3 more of these towers to pay interest on the bank note from borrowing the original $21,000, which was more like $200,000 by the time we over-spent, under planned, over estimated the demand, underestimated the costs, overestimated the employees abilities to work, underestimated the damage that lighting can cause, and so on and so forth. I also need 7 more of these towers to offset the cost of not actually installing 100 clients on day 1, and not getting $100 tower rent, not getting 100 clients per AP, and not getting $200 CPE, and to offset the deadbeats who write hot checks, paying the cell phone bill, buy the fender when an antenna falls off of the roof during an install, buy the insurance to pay for it next time, buy new PCs, put tires on the trucks, change the oil, buying a mail server, buying another server to remove the spam from the first mail server, buying spare servers, routers, tools, and paying consultants when I cannot figure it out. Then I need another 14 towers to pay for the psychotherapist when go nuts trying to manage 2900 subscribers, who are all bitching and moaning because their PC has a virus, or their kid is downloading porn, or maybe they are getting spam, or they can't get their bittorrent client to download more than 500kbps. I am not there yet. We are still working on getting tower number 7 online, and installing customer number 350'ish, and I am not on the mood altering drugs... yet. Eventually, there is a model there for making money in this business somewhere between the hobby stage and the looney bin. The ways to do that should be the same as any other business whether you are selling internet, real estate, health care, computers, or donuts. 1: Time is money, so don't waste time or money. 2. Don't cut corners. 3. Don't piss off the customers. Pete Davis NoDial.net Travis Johnson wrote: Tom, There is no such thing as average profit per sub after ROI period. Let me give an example: I lease all my CPE. It is a recurring monthly debt that will never go away. Even after 3 years, when I own the CPE, there will be new CPE that needs purchased... and thus new towers, new AP's, new backhauls, new routers, new bandwidth, new whatever. Even if I move that paid for CPE to a new customer on the edges of my network, there are still costs mentioned above for that customer. Maybe I'm not thinking the same as you, but I can never see an after ROI period. It never happens. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: I agree current profit is irrelevant, when considering company totals during the early growth period. But calcualted future Profit clearly is
