I wasn't given access to government buildings and easements, I was forced
to pay private entities. The rules now change, if municipalities start
giving away easements to a single provider that wins the deal to compete
against me. I deserve to get compensated for my investment as well.
NO! You deserve to have the same easment access.
Yeah, probably so.
I guess my point was sorta like the telcos that paid millions for their
spectrum and now get irritated that unlicensed ISPs may get it free after
the fact.
I would have rather had the free easement 4 years ago.
Why sell at a loss? I just doesnt work.
What I meant was it takes time to gain an ROI. Most companies loose in the
beginning, until they get to a certain scale.
A higher and faster ROI can be acheived if multiple angles exist to gain
revenue. Why make half the profit one can make, if their is an optioin for
them to make more?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providerspay forstandard
accesstoconsumers?
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Jerome,
Its not that I do not agree with your ideals. You are probably right in
your ideals, and I share many of them. The problem is that we don't live
in an ideal world.
Certain strategic ways and mentalities of doing busainess, whether fair
or not, already exist. We need to recognize that reality. We either join
the game that is in play, or we get out of the business because we'd
loose otherwise.
Good point.
of the pie. This is like charging the cafe in town for every truck over
20,000 lb GVW cause they want to pad the road taxes.
I'm already forced to do that, with over 50% of my company revenue going
to property owners to access their tenants, in one shape or another.
Partially to broadcast sites, sometimes revenue share on the receipt
side, sometimes an easement for a relay in between. I either pay, or sit
there ideal never growing my network at a rate fast enough to survive.
Ok my bad. That is more like rent the cafe pays. This SBC deal feels like
Sysco comeing back after selling you the food and asking for a % of the
proffits
also.
Thats one of the reasons I'm hesitent about supporting municipal
broadband.
hesitent? Im flat out against it and so should anyone in this business
(and are I think) cept those that stand to be the person doing it.
I wasn't given access to government buildings and easements, I was forced
to pay private entities. The rules now change, if municipalities start
giving away easements to a single provider that wins the deal to compete
against me. I deserve to get compensated for my investment as well.
NO! You deserve to have the same easment access.
I can tell yyou right now its going to be awfullt tough to get my
investment compensated just on subcriber fees alone.
What else were you expecting? Its those fees we are after.
Its the total value of the subscriber that will allow me to get my ROI.
Why do VCs pay values much higher than the annual revenue of a
subscriber? VCs have valued and paid as much as $1500 per $30 a month
subscriber, why is this? Why did AOL get so large? I don't feel AOL made
much money at all on subscription fees. It was the marketing dollars and
sales deals. Why can we not be compensated for the value we hold in our
subscribers? The problem with your arguement is that you don't want SBC
to be compensated, (which I agrre :-) but forget that that also means you
don't ahve the right to be compensated.
I dont need or want compensated for a SBC user reciving data from me. My
end user pays that. If the end user doesnt want to pay for 50GB/mo
that they send that is fine, dont send it. If they want to host something
we can work with them to do it right.
As a wireless provider thatserves the underserved, I have a unique value
in my client base. Access to a unique segment of the population that is
underserved. I plan to FULLY leverage that value. And I'm not going to
let some INternet content provider steal that advantage away from me, so
they can make money. I paid to build that advantage, not them.
That is a good thing. You want to do TVoIP then do it, its BEST for the
end ISP to do it anyhow.
The last thing we want to do is support legislation that forces us to
give away the right to becompensated for our investments, and not be able
to take advantage of the value of our assets, our subscribers. Quite
honestly, its the only thing we have left to guarantee our survival. We
can get to those underserved markets more cost effectively, at least we
can as a WISP.
I think we can as a non wisp too. I would love to have easment rights. I
would mop up the compitition here.
As an infrastructure provider, I need to protect that asset. My job is
to make me money, not the rest of the world. The customer does not own
me, I own the customer. I give them broadband at a loss, so that I can
get the financial benefit down the road, becaues I have them as a
customer. How is this mentality any different than SBC's?
Why sell at a loss? I just doesnt work.
Its not that I want to support SBC's position, or methods that they
suggest to take care of the problem. But we need to build a level palying
field of whats good for the goose os good for the gander. We do NOT want
to give away our value inadvertently.
No we dont want ot give anything away. I do NOT see a big problem with the
current market. The telcos are starting to slip and they know it. They
want to manuver us into something we think is good but is a trap.
This is one of the reasons I think it is so important for WISPs to start
making their own opeers and interconnections,
Absolutly!
to start to grow their numbers and relationships, so we have a more level
playing field and are not held hostage by unfair rules. We need to
consolidate the value we have as WISPs, and use this unique client base
as our leverage to be treated fairly. Content providers want access to
our customers, and their is plenty of justification for them to afford to
pay for it.
Yes! They can buy a pipe from us to hit our network directly. Google will
be one of the major people to help this happen.
we have to start thinking like the big boys to survive in their world.
Don't forget reciprical compensation, onr of the strongest rules that
have allowed independant Dial UP providers survive through all the years.
They demanded that they get compensated for their side of the
connnections.
for IP now and it just will not work! If this goes into effect, I could
setup a nearly unlimited number of bots to go and suck massive amounts
of data of
what ever type I want (the type that pays the most) and not even HAVE
end users. MMMmmmm I can feel the morgage being paid off already
Good point, a problem that needs tackling.
It just can not be done. You will have to make rules saying no encrypted
packets. That still doesnt stop bots from hosing the scale.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeromie Reeves"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providerspay forstandard
accesstoconsumers?
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/