Wow, very well spoken VJ.
I agree that getting investors is necessary to take it from a mom and pop shop to a serious player. Growing on sales alone is too slow and does not allow for generational jumps in architecture.
That being said, it’s better to have one maybe two larger investors than alot of smaller investors. The smaller players just bitch and argue and lose sight of the end game where a larger investor is more likely to stay focused over a longer period of time.
We are actually getting some funding. This will do a few things:
- Allow us to replace/upgrade some aging equipment
- Allow the president to get his investment back out
- Allow me to get a decent salary so I can focus 100% of my efforts on growth
- Allow a marketing budget that will generate more leads.
I am looking forward to the next year.
Totally agree with you, you have to be careful who you get into bed with…
we had about 8 sleeping partners and when I say sleeping I meant sleeping… from the out set we approached a handful of VC’s expecting to turned away and we were… every six months we go back the same VC’s and say look we said we will do this and we have done it… that 10% we were asking 100k for well we now want 500k for it, so they say no…
we go back after a 6 month and say look we exceeded our projections, now we want 1million… they guys are now doing analysis on us and are willing to invest… the smaller investors we are buying out by giving them a healthy profit (double in 12months) they are happy…
important thins is that VC want to multiply their investment by 4-5 times in 5-6 years, aslong as you can prove that to them, they are game…
you always need an exit strategy to show how you will pay the investor…
We have a plan to get our network to a stage in 12 months after I do that then I can sell more services, be more competitive, generate more revenue, if I can get the investment to throw money at it and get it done in 3 months I would do it… giving me 9 months… .I can then plan ahead again…
We are looking constantly looking for funding, our network is growing so quickly that it is maxing out all our kit, switches, routers, shapers, Canopy, etc…
I too am looking forward to the next 12 months, I have been working 18-20 hours a day for the last 18months… and I have enjoyed every second of it, before I started I could just about spell CISCO, now I on a daily basis hammer all these paper CCNA/CCNP out there, the next 12 will be awsome…
Your argument only serves to reinforce my point.
Well yeah, if you change your argument then I can't help but prove your point....
Your 'original' argument was that the price should be high to 'prevent competition'. You now say the price is high because it is better equipment. Not the same. I could not argue with "it is expensive but it's good" because I have no idea what it costs moto to make the equipment.
20.00 phones sound crappy, break easily, and don't have much in the way of performance or features. In the end you are going to wish you had bought a better phone. You really can't use a 900MHz cheapie phone anymore as the spectrum is too crowded.
Not your original point. According to your " keep it high to prevent competition" there would be no $20.00 phones.... well there would be but you would be selling $20.00 phones for $100's.
A 250.00 phone will have better range, frequency selection, sound better, deal with interference, last longer, and have more features. In the end you are going to be glad you have a great phone. You might run into interference, but you will probably be able to get away from it.
That would be the $800.00 phone.
I agree it is tough to compete against the Telcos and Cable Companies. If the cost of the CPE's is getting in the way of your growth, there are ways around that. You can lease it and build it into the monthly cost. You can get investors. You can sell more business service. Then there is always Canopy Lite @ 150.00 each. How much cheaper do you want it?
There is something ironic about someone using unlicensed spectrum (because it is "FREE") and preaching the goodness of keeping the entry costs high so they don't have to share their "Free" spectrum with just anyone. Maybe Ironic isn't really the right word.
OK, back to my original point.
If the costs drop like you want them to, you will be looking for a new product to use because your investment will be worthless.
Is that clear enough?
Jerry Richardson wrote: OK, back to my original point.
If the costs drop like you want them to, you will be looking for a new product to use because your investment will be worthless.
Is that clear enough?
If 'very expensive' equipment is actually a factor giving your investment value, or even if it is a part of the value, then you need a new business model. That is life in the technology world and it has been that way since Billy Bob bought his first 8088 PC only to find the newer / better model cost 1/2 as much 6 months later. In a rack not 3 feet from were I am setting I have routers I paid anywhere from $12,000.00 to $35,000.00 each for when they was new. Those routers are not worth $12,000.00 'combined' today and the oldest one is only 4 years old.
While my network and customers are worth a great deal of money the equipment it all runs on is not even a fraction of a percent of the value.
You win.
thats a stupid anology…
the price is a barrier to entry… it protects you from idiots who do not know what they are doing… routers drop in price because there are so many of them in the market…
as an ISP or any form of service provider you biggest asset is not your kit it is the quality of your service, in wireless a big proportion of this will depend on how stable your RF network is, which is heavily influenced by the environment you are working in… hence you want the space to be clean… operating in the 5GHz band, you want it to be as clean as possible… and if high cost kit will do that then it is a good thing.
Canopy can handle other 5.7G kit, what it can’t handle is other badly configured Canopy kit…
Why are people moving from 2.4 to 5.7, I am sure if you add a couple of 0’s to the end price tags of all 2.4 kit, it would make the 2.4 a better place to operate…
for the small short term thinker cheap price is good… .for the long term player cheap price is not good
just to add… why it was a stupid anology…
my next door neighbour can put 100 CISCO’s in his room next door, it will have absolutely no affect on the reliability of my CISCO…
vj wrote: just to add.... why it was a stupid anology...
my next door neighbour can put 100 CISCO's in his room next door, it will have absolutely no affect on the reliability of my CISCO.....
If your neighbor builds a 10,000 customer business using "Uncle Bob's RayD'O system" and various spare parts while you build a 10,000 customer system using " Corvette Extra-Deluxe-Mega-Expensive-Gold-Plated Wireless for Dummies " equipment. Your company won't be worth a dime more than his just because you paid more for your equipment.
Just like every other business your worth will depend on your knowledge, skill, and your results, not the price of your equipment.
Interestingly enough, the topic is “Your Opinion”.
You have yours, I have mine. Rather than getting angry at each other, let’s leave it at that.
Well said Jerry.
you get what you pay for…
if your not happy with the price… there are cheaper alternatives in the market…
open market economy… price is set by supply and demand
----------------------
I did point out that if we both used CISCO’s, in which case you are correct does comedown to skill and knowledge
however
If my next door neigbour wants to build a wireless network out of canopy because it is cheap then the reliability and stability of my network will depend on his understanding of wave theory and if given the choice I am willing to pay more for that kit if it means it will price him out
p.s Apologise for the use of word "stupid"
no offense intended