And that would be something to look at differently. Throwing some
money because you were curious is different than thinking it's going to
be viable off the bat.
On 12/14/2016 01:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Yes, I would certainly spend some money just to satisfy curiosity.
*From:* Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2016 2:37 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] wisp hanging on by a thread
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
