Certainly I didn't mean to imply that Atlanta's RFP is the same as every
other city. However, almost all of the first tier cities have similar RFPs.
In regard to competition, remember that coverage doesn't matter; sales
matter. It is easy to compete with even established WISPs who have large
coverage areas because most of the time they don't know how to sell.
This is not a problem that only WISPs face. We see it with CLECs as
well. In our market, CBeyond easily beat all the established CLECs right
in their backyards because they know how to sell. Footprint is not
enough; execution is everything.
John Scrivner wrote:
Actually you are also taking your own city's view and trying to say
that is all there is. My opportunity gets me a paid contract to deploy
mobile WiFi service into all police vehicles (even though it does not
pay much), use of street light poles, use of water towers, etc. I
doubt another provider would be interested in trying to compete if you
cover a good part of your city. If you are not then why aren't you
trying to cover the whole of the city? I am betting there is plenty of
opportunity. What I don't know is if it makes money or goes broke
using the muni-deployment model. Does the model pay out on paper? How
long is ROI? What does the IRR look like over 5 years? I would be
interested in seeing what you see as a model for this going forward.
At least the capex and opex based on what revenues. Can you share?
Maybe on the operator membership list? Thanks for anything you can
Matt Liotta wrote:
I think you may be taking your city's view about muni Wi-Fi and
applying it to the rest of the country. For example, if you read the
Atlanta RFP, they require you to provide coverage for 95% of the
city. Do you know what the city is offering up to the winning bidder?
Access to traffic lights and city owned buildings. That's it! If you
want pole rights you still have to contract with the local utility.
If you want roof rights you have to contract with various building
owners. So, what you consider golden isn't even on the table. And its
not like Atlanta's RFP is somehow different than other major cities.
We already have roof rights throughout the city and we already pay
the local utility company for pole rights and power. How does
providing a service to the city help me?
John Scrivner wrote:
Many WISPs have been too busy trashing the Muni-WiFi concept to look
at the opportunities. Who can blame AT&T for taking advantage when
most WISPs turned up their noses. It is not too late for WISPs to
get a foothold in the Muni-WiFi arena if they try. Turning up their
noses at the idea will not win them any contracts though. The most
important thing to understand is that getting access to light poles
and electrical power is golden. The street light based wireless
broadband platform will change over time. Eventually a platform will
emerge that will work well. There are many people who are
aggressively making headway toward building real carrier class
wireless broadband operating off of street lights. I have 4 nodes
being installed on street lights this morning. I see a day when
these nodes will have GigE backhaul capacity with redundant paths
all through the air. WiMAX distribution to homes and businesses will
be the norm. This is going to happen.
Peter R. wrote:
Ma Bell's About Face On Muni-WiFi
from the /is-that-about-face,-or-just-two-faced?/ dept
Remember the good old days of... well, last year, when telcos were
telcos and they absolutely hated muni-WiFi? It was such a huge
threat to their business that they gave Congress people plenty of
money to make it illegal. Of course, that was before they actually
bothered looking at many of the muni-WiFi proposals, and recognized
they weren't really "government-run" at all, but were really no
different than traditional telco deals. The government was simply
giving away rights of way for placing equipment in return for
promises of service. The providers could still be commercial
providers with real business models. Suddenly, the industry
opposition quieted down. Industry associations claimed that
muni-WiFi was great... and AT&T (whose former employee introduced
the bill to ban muni-WiFi) was seen providing the very same "free,
tax-supported" WiFi they had screamed about just months before.
Well, congrats to AT&T for all that hard work trying to stop
muni-WiFi. You've just won another muni-WiFi deal (this one without
taxpayer funding). Of course, for those of you who thought that
muni-WiFi would give consumers an alternate provider, offering real
competition to the incumbent telco... well, that doesn't really
work so well when that alternate provider is the telco itself.
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org