Chuck, if you don't mind me asking, what happened to those businesses that you don't operate anymore? I remember that you used to have a Radio Shack franchise, and that is a "market shifted / disappeared" type of situation.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 9:31 AM , <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Yes, gross profit for a small operation may be pretty high, but it is that > bottom line that counts. Earnings as a percentage of gross revenue is the > gauge. >20% and you are probably OK. Easy to fool yourself in a small > operation. I still fool myself. > > Depreciation may be a paper only expense but if you really run a tight > ship, you have a depreciation reserve account or sinking fund with enough > cash in it to actually replace the equipment when time comes. > > Pontificating a bit, not commenting about anyone in particular here; > > I have created 37 businesses so far in my life. I am almost to the point > where I have a pretty good eye for income statements and balance sheets. > Perfect financials are the best tool any business has. > > Ignoring fundamentals is a good way to stay chained to a low performance > company. Like they say on shark tank, some businesses need to be taken out > behind the woodshed and shot. > > *From:* Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:00 AM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] tired of entitled streamers > > > I think that’s a mistake WISPs often make, assuming you can apply 100% of > revenue to paying off equipment cost. > > > > There’s labor, FCC licensing, insurance, bandwidth costs, tower rent, > power, equipment maintenance, G&A costs, and the cost of capital to buy > that equipment upfront. And we find ourselves replacing or upgrading > equipment every 3-5 years, and there’s always the threat of subsidized > overbuilding. So yeah, you want to see a quick payback. > > > > As a rule of thumb I usually use 50% of revenue in payback calculations. > > > > Also, I don’t recall saying my customers have nowhere else to go. > > > > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Matt Hoppes > *Sent:* Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:48 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] tired of entitled streamers > > > > 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 > > -- > 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
