Some of the Benefits: National Brand Awareness – huge plus when your brand is know and recognized as option #3 nationally
Standardized Operations – getting a bunch of WISP together and standardizing on the best operations procedures could be daunting but the benefits overshadow the initial work Buying/Negotiating power – buying 100 radios vs 10000 could be a great negotiating point, also when negotiating tower leases, fiber, ip transit etc.. Political / Lobbying – being represented by ONE entity that is backed by hundred of thousands of subs will provide leverage when lobbying at FCC and other political maters. Ht wisp operator could be seen as one of the big boys in the table vs scattered small mom and pop shops… Better prospect for exit/acquisition – Investors will take notice and as a conglomerate, there are better financial outlook in a exit strategy. From: Af <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Travis Johnson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:19 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP And honestly, what benefits are you hoping to gain?? A single name? Better pricing on equipment? I'm not sure I understand what the ultimate goal would be, and if it would be worth the cost to "consolidate" hundreds or thousands of small companies. Things are different now than they were in the early cell days... or the early cable days (as Rise/JAB is discovering). It seems like KeyOn was trying to do something similar to this, even going public, before dying a slow and miserable death. Travis On 1/30/2018 8:04 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: I like the concept, it's going to be like herding cats though... On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Brian Webster <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first cellular networks their evolution and when the industry started to explode would need to be laid out. Starting from the early 80’s on up through. This is important because as Gino has suggested, the WISP industry is following a very similar path and has always suffered from brand/product image, recognition and understanding. Cellular phones back then suffered the same problem. The word cellular was understood as a biology term by most. The term “Car Phones” was better understood and only those who had a lot of money had those and it was a party line system with no privacy. People had them out of extreme necessity only. The concept of anyone other than the phone company being able to deliver a phone service would not have ever seemed possible to a consumer. At that time the breakup of Ma Bell was just happening. A person could easily start a cellular network, no spectrum auctions back then. Just apply to the FCC and pay the license fees. Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working on a consulting project for AT&T in Portland Oregon years ago, we had to review leases, zoning approvals and other documents to determine if sites could be expanded and what work was required for same. Sometimes leases mentioned specific frequencies and antennas etc. so they might have to be renegotiated or modified to add data and new frequencies and antennas. In this process I had my hands on Craig McCaw’s first 4 cell tower leases on his first built cellular system. It was very cool to be holding that piece of history, his personal signature and all. Such an innovator that hadn’t hit his stride yet. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com<http://www.wirelessmapping.com> www.Broadband-Mapping.com<http://www.Broadband-Mapping.com> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP I won’t be there. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com<http://www.wirelessmapping.com> www.Broadband-Mapping.com<http://www.Broadband-Mapping.com> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? From: Af <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Brian Webster <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and discuss. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com<http://www.wirelessmapping.com> www.Broadband-Mapping.com<http://www.Broadband-Mapping.com> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP Hey Guys Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be repeated in the WISP industry?
