Tom DeReggi wrote:
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
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
Thats one of the reasons I'm hesitent about supporting municipal
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
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,
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
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.
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeromie Reeves"
To: "WISPA General List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providerspay forstandard
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com