Maybe a higher value, but my point was that smaller operators can't get money because they're too small. Someone with thousands of customers has the ability to get financing either from a financial institution or private investors far more easily.
There's no reason why MT or Star couldn't offer that sort of bandwidth. Another vendor I'm speaking to will have something out this spring that will do the same. The net neutrality comment means that if you sell a retail service, do whatever you want. If you're selling wholesale services, you must not block or prioritize any services. Wireless is more effective for rural areas, which is where the dollars are needed. No grant should go to Naperville, IL or Arlington, TX or Newton, MA where fiber is more effective. Those areas are already served and the current competitive providers should be investing (as Cablevision, Charter, and Verizon are in some areas). ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Smith" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:06 PM To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] grant funds ideas > Mike Hammett wrote: >> with annual revenues of $1M or less from Internet services > > What's wrong with that? That's only about $83k a month, which if you > have a high ARPU could be as few as 800-1000 existing subscribers. I can > understand having some sort of revenue cutoff, but that seems awfully low. > > I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment (why penalize people who have a > demonstrated record of success?) but at least I understand it. > > >> deploying wireless services with speeds in excess of 10/2 for >> $100/month >> or less > > Is there PtMP gear available right now that can do this on a decent > scale, providing that service to 30-50 customers per AP or head-end > device, and is reasonably affordable? What is it? I'd like to buy a > whole bunch of it. :) > > Keep in mind that you can't just say "oh grants will pay for it all," > because not even the government's coffers are bottomless, and the > current administration seems to have a bit more focus on getting value > for their dollar than the previous one. Given a choice between providing > good service to 10,000 people or great service to 1,000, I suspect > they'd choose the former. > > >> Require wholesale net neutrality, but not retail net neutrality > > I'm not even sure what this means. > > >> prefer wireless networks over landlines due to cost effectiveness > > There's no guarantee that wireless is always more cost-effective and > always will be so. At this time, for low population-density areas, it > often is, but that's nowhere near certain. > > > David Smith > MVN.net > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
