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.

Good point.

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.

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 the proffits

Thats one of the reasons I'm hesitent about supporting municipal broadband.

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 them.

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 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.

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.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providerspay forstandard accesstoconsumers?

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to