Yeah, but we don't know why their overhead was so high... if they had crazy expensive tower leases, then there might not be much of anything with any value, but I'd say it's certainly worth looking into a bit deeper.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Robert Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > The point is that with 250 customers they couldn't stay in biz... Overhead > was already killing them or they were draining the biz for their pockets... > > > On 12/14/2016 01:25 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 12/14/16 13:23, Cameron Crum wrote: >> >>> I agree with Chuck. If they are current on tower leases, regardless of >>> what else happens, you could at least have instant access. At this >>> point, you have them over a barrel. It is either fall flat and lose >>> everything or get some kind of cushion. Maybe get the network on with an >>> agreement like $X/sub who actually stays on for more than 2 months, >>> payable after that period. If they have already burned the tower owners >>> then it may be a run away situation as they have probably left a bad >>> taste for wisps. >>> >> >> >> I dunno... couldn't pay their upstream and the bank repo'd their NOC. >> Chances high are they are behind on other payments too. >> >> One could offer to bring everything current, I guess. >> >> ~Seth >> >>
