We also have started feeding micro sites with licensed links. A Ubiquiti 11ghz link runs about $5,000. Even over 10 subscribers that’s only $500/subscriber or a break even on equipment after about a year if you are charging $50 or more a month for service.
We have micro sites where I’ve got: $5,000 in backhaul $2,500 in utility pole and power $5,000 in access equipment To service 10-15 homes I still break even in a year or just slightly longer and am providing 50 megabit service. The 3ghz fed by licensed link sounds like an awesome money maker. But it will take a year until you see it. You have to have a running sheet of amortizations and expenses and plan. You just said earlier: your customers have nowhere else to go to. Why not provide excellent service at a reasonable cost? > On Nov 17, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > > If that’s all it costs you, kudos. > > But we’re running out of spectrum at many towers (there are other WISPs > throughout our service area), plus we also have to add backhaul capacity, > and all that uses power so we need more batteries. We’re having to run > backhauls in licensed spectrum, even to micropops. And we’re having to add > “small cells” to get closer to customers. Because with all the streaming we > can’t have customers at low modulations, and to reach those customers who > move to a low spot surrounded by trees, and to deal with spectrum exhaustion. > All this costs a lot more than $300. > > We have 3.65GHz sites fed via 11 GHz with 10 subscribers. The only way that > makes money is averaging over all our sites. And still we can’t build enough > micropops to get LOS to everyone who chooses to live down by a creek > surrounded by trees. Yesterday I checked photos from 3 of our towers to a > prospective customer and the only thing we could see was a little of the peak > of a 40 ft barn with big gaping holes in the roof that would be unsafe to > walk on, and that was on an old micropop where we’re out of backhaul capacity > to sell 20+ Mbps speeds (it’s actually fed via an SM from another tower, > something we don’t do anymore). They apparently bought the house from an > elderly couple, at their previous house they had gigabit Metronet fiber. > Well, that was pretty sweet, maybe you shouldn’t have moved. > > Honestly, I think the only real, long-term solution to rural broadband is > FTTH. The problem of course is money. And with several companies launching > thousands of LEO satellites promising broadband for everyone, I think that > will suppress even further any large investments in rural broadband. > Investors would also have to weigh how serious the mobile carriers are about > rural fixed wireless, is it just marketing hype and lobbying to regulators as > it has been in the past? > > I do find it ironic that we have low flush toilets, energy efficient > appliances, LED light bulbs, alternate day lawn watering, and mandated fuel > efficiency for vehicles, yet conspicuous consumption of Internet bandwidth > seems to be our patriotic duty. With all the content moving to streaming > services like Disney+ and content being priced high to cable companies but > disruptively low for streaming, it’s clear there won’t be a choice, > traditional broadcast and cable TV is dying and everyone will have to get > their TV via the Internet. It’s like having to get a cellphone because there > aren’t any payphones anymore, the train is leaving and you either buy a > ticket or get left behind. For awhile though, people do have a choice, you > can still put up a TV antenna or get satellite TV. It’s becoming 500 > channels of crap though. > > Still, if you have gigabit fiber where you live now, maybe don’t move to > Green Acres unless you really like doing country stuff. Or at least cut down > some of the damn trees. Sheesh, miles and miles of open fields, and then 75 > foot trees all around your house. > > > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes > Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 8:43 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] tired of entitled streamers > > I get that. But my point is - if this is truly a rural environment it costs > maybe $300 to add another access point for capacity. > > I just don’t see the point in penalizing customers when the cost to add > capacity is so low. > > On Nov 17, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would say it more nicely, but IMO there's a very valid point here. Having > been at both a 100% rural WISP and an urban WISP running side by side with > cable I can say that it's less stressful for you if the unsatisfied customers > have a real option to leave. It forces you to stay on top of your game, but > also allows a pressure valve to release the customers you can never satisfy. > And wouldn't we all like to have only the low to median usage and > non-complaining customers? I don't see anything wrong with trying to > strategically dis-incentivize the ones you don't want. > > In Darin's shoes the thing I'd try to remember is that the GB values are > going to be a moving target trending ever upwards. You'll have to evaluate > and probably raise those GB allowances every year to keep the median > customers satisfied and maintain that balance. > > -Adam > > > > On 11/16/2019 3:07 PM, Darin Steffl wrote: > Matt, > > You can simply go away. We have competitor wisp's and many have poor reviews. > We simply do it best and have the highest Facebook ratings of any ISP. > > We simply want to make heavy users pay more. Why should we raise prices for > all customers when only a small percentage are the ones driving us to upgrade > things? I'll take 5 average customers at 200gb per month over one customer > using 1TB. > > You may be a tech guy but not understand business very well. The point of > this is to drive away bad customers and keep good ones. Good customers will > not be penalized with these plans. Fewer customers with the same amount of > revenue means higher profit, plain and simple. > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 1:52 PM Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote: > Wow. Yikes. If I was in your area you’d be driving me to start a competing > ISP with you. > > You’ll drive your users away. > > Seriously. It doesn’t cost that much to upgrade a tower or backhaul to > support more capacity. > > On Nov 16, 2019, at 2:18 PM, Darin Steffl <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> wrote: > > We're moving away from "truly unlimited" plans and going to unlimited with X > amount of high-speed data between noon and midnight. > > For example, we'll have plans with high-speed data amounts of 65, 300, 600, > 900, 1200, 1800GB a month with that data only being counted 12 hours each > day. Outside noon to midnight, the data will not count to encourage them to > shift large downloads to our off peak times. If they insist on streaming on 4 > devices during peak and using 100GB per day like some homes, their bill will > be well over $250 a month. Here is our rural pricing for these proposed > plans. Once they hit their threshold, they slow down to 1 mbps. We will never > have overage charges so they're in full control of their cost. Either they > lower their usage or pay more to continue the high usage. > > What I call abusive usage continues to increase and I feel we need to have > plans like these to make heavy users pay for the cost of us upgrading our > gear earlier than planned for. These plans are also still way better than any > satellite plan in terms of caps and latency. > > > 35 Meg/65GB - $65 > 25 Meg/300GB - $90 35 Meg/600GB - $110 > 45 Meg/900GB - $130 > 55 Meg/1,200GB - $150 > 55-100 Meg/1,800GB - $200 > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019, 11:50 AM Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com> wrote: > Give them what you sell them. If they call in more than 3 times complaining > then say 'you obviously can't provide them the experience they're expecting, > and that you'll be out in a few days to remove the equipment.' That should > either silence them, or push them to hughesnet and they can see what being > rural really means. > > On 11/16/2019 11:31 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > Anybody else losing their patience with streamers? > > The people who just moved from somewhere they had gigabit fiber to the middle > of nowhere in a low spot surrounded by tons of trees, and say they stream all > their TV on 3-4 screens at the same time. > > I want to yell at them, if you had affordable blazing fast Internet, and it’s > that important to you, why did you move? And if you had to move, why didn’t > you move to a nice suburb with fiber or at least cable? And why do you have > to stream everything? You could get satellite TV. Yes, it’s expensive, get > over it. You could put up a TV antenna. You could get DVDs by mail. Or if > moving to the country was so important, you could go out on the ATV or horse > or snowmobile, or go hunting, or feed the chickens and mini goats. If > they’re streaming all the time, I have to suspect the reason for moving to > Green Acres was to save on property taxes, and the reason for streaming is to > avoid paying $200/month to DirecTV or DISH. > > It’s gotten so bad, a significant number of prospective customers say they > only want Internet to stream, anything else they can do on their phone. And > when a streaming subscription is sub $10 (or free with Amazon Prime), they’re > thinking Internet is like shipping, it shouldn’t cost more than the item > being delivered. > > I know, “OK boomer”. > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
