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.
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.
Thats one of the reasons I'm hesitent about supporting municipal broadband.
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. I can tell yyou
right now its going to be awfullt tough to get my investment compensated
just on subcriber fees alone. 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.
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.
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. 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?
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.
This is one of the reasons I think it is so important for WISPs to start
making their own opeers and interconnections, 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.
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.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providerspay forstandard
accesstoconsumers?
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
