Even though it is reportedly 80% built-out, they seem to feel it is worth more as scrap than as an on-going revenue generator. Of course, this may just be a bluff. Earthlink probably hopes that their threat will get the city to buy them out in order to avoid being blamed for the network's failure.
Which all reminds me of MetroFi's threats to stop building the Portland network unless the city agreed to an anchor tenancy contract.
I can think of no better argument for a community built and supported network than the low-life tactics that some of the Municipal Wireless Providers are now employing to try to escape their own misjudgments and naive business models. A network built by and for the community should cost less and provide better service, over the long term, than one built to hit quarterly profit goals and satisfy investors.
What next? "Buy our network or the kitten gets it!"
<mich...@personaltelco.net> wrote: > According to this article, Earthlink is threatening to dismantle their > Philadelphia network if the city doesn't buy them out by tomorrow:
> Even though it is reportedly 80% built-out, they seem to feel it is > worth more as scrap than as an on-going revenue generator. Of course, > this may just be a bluff. Earthlink probably hopes that their threat > will get the city to buy them out in order to avoid being blamed for > the network's failure.
As many of your probably have seen, Earthlink announced that it would dismantle the network beginning in June. They claim to have offered it for free to the city or an unnamed non-profit, but presumably the costs associated with running the network and potentially some outstanding liabilities left the city and non-profit disinclined to accept that offer.
It will be interesting to see if MetroFi choose to make such an offer, should they decide to shut down. As I understand it, they have posted a bond to cover equipment removal, so dismantling the network is in effect already paid for. Given the limited coverage area and onerous MSN spyware as the only revenue stream, it's hard to imagine either the city or another entity seeing much value in taking over the network as it stands.
Another great reason for PTP to exist! The MetroFi system is at best, a poor system. Many folks have confused PTP with MetroFi. After explaining the difference and showing the two systems side by side (yes, I've done this), the overwhelming response is that folks much prefer PTP access points.
Putting Wifi in the hands of shareholders is a bad idea.
Three cheers for PTP!
Greg
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Michael Weinberg <
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Michael Weinberg > <mich...@personaltelco.net> wrote: > > According to this article, Earthlink is threatening to dismantle their > > Philadelphia network if the city doesn't buy them out by tomorrow:
> > Even though it is reportedly 80% built-out, they seem to feel it is > > worth more as scrap than as an on-going revenue generator. Of course, > > this may just be a bluff. Earthlink probably hopes that their threat > > will get the city to buy them out in order to avoid being blamed for > > the network's failure.
> As many of your probably have seen, Earthlink announced that it would > dismantle the network beginning in June. They claim to have offered it > for free to the city or an unnamed non-profit, but presumably the > costs associated with running the network and potentially some > outstanding liabilities left the city and non-profit disinclined to > accept that offer.
> It will be interesting to see if MetroFi choose to make such an offer, > should they decide to shut down. As I understand it, they have posted > a bond to cover equipment removal, so dismantling the network is in > effect already paid for. Given the limited coverage area and onerous > MSN spyware as the only revenue stream, it's hard to imagine either > the city or another entity seeing much value in taking over the > network as it stands.
I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is profitable.
Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a penny, that's $30K/month.
It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.
>> As many of your probably have seen, Earthlink announced that it would >> dismantle the network beginning in June. They claim to have offered it >> for free to the city or an unnamed non-profit, but presumably the >> costs associated with running the network and potentially some >> outstanding liabilities left the city and non-profit disinclined to >> accept that offer.
>> It will be interesting to see if MetroFi choose to make such an offer, >> should they decide to shut down. As I understand it, they have posted >> a bond to cover equipment removal, so dismantling the network is in >> effect already paid for. Given the limited coverage area and onerous >> MSN spyware as the only revenue stream, it's hard to imagine either >> the city or another entity seeing much value in taking over the >> network as it stands.
> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is > profitable.
> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen > splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, > that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a > penny, that's $30K/month.
> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network > -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
> So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.
I have a real hard time believing those numbers. Have you ever been able to connect to Metro-Fi's network? Do you know anyone who uses it regularly?
I have never gotten a clean and clear connection to their network. I can see their network, I just can't get a working connection.
I think the numbers are cooked so some sucker will come along and buy them.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Sam Churchill <schurch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is profitable.
> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen > splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, > that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a > penny, that's $30K/month.
These numbers seem believable, though I'm not very familiar with online ad-revenue, I'll go with that.
> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network
$30K/month is only $360K/year. MetroFi had initially speculated a buildout cost of $10M, though I believe I read somewhere that they had only spend $2M on Portland, so far. If you remove any on-going costs, it would take five and a half years to make up that initial $2M investment. Also, based on the contract with the city, at the end of 5 years, MetroFi needs to begin paying the city for the space they are leasing on traffic signals and the like, which likely represents 10-20% of the revenue you've calculated.
> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
I would guess that the introduction of the 3G iPhone will result in most users abandoning MetroFi's unpredictable and ad-encumbered network.
Metrofi is my sole connection. I disconnected my dsl line six months ago. I depend on it 100 % for all dailywireless.org research and story posting. If it goes down, I go down.
Is it reliable? No. Is it frustrating? Yes. The bottom line is it's good enough for me not to give up on it. And it's free.
I wouldn't normally use it as my sole provider, but it forces my to use it and monitor the system in my downtown location (one block from the train station downtown).
I have no idea what Metrofi's real performance numbers are. I'm just saying they have alot of advertising.
The real issue is The Deal with any intended buyer. It should include a public service component that delivers free or discount service to those that need it and don't have it.
I think wifi is too expensive - at more than $100K a mile - to provide suburban service. That's why I'm partial to WiMAX for the outskirts. Free with ads, $9.95 for up to 1 Mbps.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alan <a...@clueserver.org> wrote:
>> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is >> profitable.
>> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen >> splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
>> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, >> that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a >> penny, that's $30K/month.
>> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network >> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
>> So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.
> I have a real hard time believing those numbers. Have you ever been able > to connect to Metro-Fi's network? Do you know anyone who uses it > regularly?
> I have never gotten a clean and clear connection to their network. I can > see their network, I just can't get a working connection.
> I think the numbers are cooked so some sucker will come along and buy them.
I'm certainly not going to debate your experience, Sam, and I think your insight, as a regular user of their service is invaluable, if anecdotal. Allow me, though, to present the problem I see with your (and many others') logic concerning the iPhone.
The main advantage of an ad-supported network, from a user perspective, is that the service is free. You also accept potentially spotty uptime and temperamental speeds, precisely because you are not paying.
Use of the iPhone is predicated on the user purchasing unlimited Internet access from AT&T. Virtually every iPhone user is going to have immediate access to approximately 500k/200k of always-on Internet access. Does MetroFi reliably provide higher speeds than this for you? My (again, anecdotal) experience is much worse than that. MetroFi certainly can't match the coverage that AT&T provides its iPhone customers. I just can't see any value in having the phone connect to MetroFi rather than using the already-paid-for service through AT&T.
You might make that argument for the iPod Touch, but I don't believe that those are anywhere near as prevalent as the iPhone.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Sam Churchill <schurch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Metrofi is my sole connection. I disconnected my dsl line six months > ago. I depend on it 100 % for all dailywireless.org research and story > posting. If it goes down, I go down.
> Is it reliable? No. Is it frustrating? Yes. The bottom line is it's > good enough for me not to give up on it. And it's free.
> I wouldn't normally use it as my sole provider, but it forces my to > use it and monitor the system in my downtown location (one block from > the train station downtown).
> I have no idea what Metrofi's real performance numbers are. I'm just > saying they have alot of advertising.
> The real issue is The Deal with any intended buyer. It should include > a public service component that delivers free or discount service to > those that need it and don't have it.
> I think wifi is too expensive - at more than $100K a mile - to provide > suburban service. That's why I'm partial to WiMAX for the outskirts. > Free with ads, $9.95 for up to 1 Mbps.
> - Sam > ---------------
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alan <a...@clueserver.org> wrote:
>>> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is >>> profitable.
>>> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full screen >>> splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant revenue.
>>> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, >>> that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a >>> penny, that's $30K/month.
>>> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing network >>> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
>>> So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.
>> I have a real hard time believing those numbers. Have you ever been able >> to connect to Metro-Fi's network? Do you know anyone who uses it >> regularly?
>> I have never gotten a clean and clear connection to their network. I can >> see their network, I just can't get a working connection.
>> I think the numbers are cooked so some sucker will come along and buy them.
> I think wifi is too expensive - at more than $100K a mile - to provide > suburban service. That's why I'm partial to WiMAX for the outskirts. > Free with ads, $9.95 for up to 1 Mbps.
WiMAX is NOT the magic bullet. It costs millions to deploy, you need to own spectrum, and at the end of the day, it's coverage isn't any better than wifi minus some given level of interference. WiFi can be deployed for much less than 100k per sq mile if you're not providing mobile access. On top of that, the Clearwire/Sprint/Comcast conglomerate will never provide free access (ad driven or not) and currently charge WAY more than $10 for 1Mb.
Quit drinking the intel kool-aide
Tyler Booth // President ph. 503.548.2000 | fx. 503.548.2002 921 SW Washington St, Suite 224 Portland OR 97205
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alan <a...@clueserver.org> wrote:
>>> I think it's likely that the core network - as currently built - is >>> profitable.
>>> Those constant ads from MSN and Microsoft, as well as the full >>> screen >>> splash ads from Metrofi have got to be generating significant >>> revenue.
>>> Lets say 20,000 users generate 100,000 pageviews/day. Times 30 days, >>> that's 3 million page views a month. If each one generated only a >>> penny, that's $30K/month.
>>> It wouldn't be imagine $500K- $1M a year -- on their existing >>> network >>> -- given the rise of devices like the iPhone.
>>> So who's the likely buyer? I'd put money on Microsoft.
>> I have a real hard time believing those numbers. Have you ever >> been able >> to connect to Metro-Fi's network? Do you know anyone who uses it >> regularly?
>> I have never gotten a clean and clear connection to their network. >> I can >> see their network, I just can't get a working connection.
>> I think the numbers are cooked so some sucker will come along and >> buy them.
This is an interesting discussion, so I thought I would add my opinions....
My firm has extensively deployed both muni WiFi and now WiMax @ 3.65GHz (to replace the muni WiFi networks). IMHO, WiMax is very much the real deal, and you can believe the hype. Using just 2 WiMax APs we get the same coverage that currently takes about 125 WiFi APs and with much (3X) higher client speeds, lower maintenance, better QoS, and up to 20X the number of users per AP, etc. Also, you dont have to deal with the municipality, rights of way, bank switched power, interference, rouge APs, security issues, etc.
I believe that Muni WiFi is pretty much dead. I am not saying it cant work, I am just saying that economically it is not viable right now. $100k per sq mile is being optimistic, the best networks (like the Tropos network in Miami beach) have 50 APs per square mile to get blanket laptop coverage. That translates to about $160k/sq mile, plus very high OPEX for electricity, maintenance, etc. With WiMax, you can do mobile laptop coverage at 1-2 or fewer per square mile depending on the band. WiMax only costs us about 5X more per AP versus WiFi (e.g. tropos), so you do the math on the per sq mile, but the difference is an order of magnitude.
I believe that Muni WiFi is a 5G architecture (picocell) that was attempted many years to early and with the wrong wireless technology. This is not to say that good ideas like PTP and Meraki wont be successfull, they will be. But mobile WiMax is a very important and powerful technology for operators and I hope to see this deployed worldwide as soon as possible. A WiMax iPhone that works everywhere will be truly awesome. Yes WiMax is not free or under $10/month, but it can be a very good deal. You can see our wimax pricing on our website, the lowest prices we offer are $29/mo with no contract for 2Mbps and $49 for 6M. Not as good as free, but certainly not bad.
tyler
-------
Tyler van Houwelingen Founder & CEO Azulstar, Inc. 1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417 Main: 1-877-AZULSTAR Fax: 616-842-1104 www.azulstar.com
----- Original Message ----- From: Tyler Booth To: ptp-general@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [ptp-general] Re: Earthlink Threatens to Pull the Plug on Philadelphia -- Tries to Strong Arm City
