Thanks for the reply, Garry.
I agree that your cable deal is a very good idea. I hadn't even thought of this as a possibility. At one time, I know that Cox here in San Diego had been considering an "open" model where various ISPs would offer their service through their facilities, and at least one local ISP was in talks with them.
However, they did an exclusive deal with @Home, and I have to say I'm much more pleased with the service than I think I would have had they partnered with the local ISP. @Home is doing a splended job of deploying and maintaining their servers and network - the best that I have seen anywhere. For example, they understand the importance of local servers, which a lot of the national operations don't seem to "get". They obviously have some very talented router rats, which I'm sure you will agree is terribly important. :)
I do think that the cable companies will go the route of exclusive deals with outside companies, such as @Home and yourselves. (That is, I doubt that many will go it alone, at least not just yet, and don't think an open model will be adopted either.)
If you are able to pull off more of these deals, it could be quite lucrative in the long term. However, this will likely take a great deal of "survival capital", as this is going to ramp-up slowly, and will take a completely different approach (you are selling - at least initially - to cable companies, after all, not consumers). To be gaining some experience in this area is certainly a positive.
As to Mr. Dayton's ego, perhaps I overstepped, as I don't know how it does or doesn't affect the business. I can tell you that it shows through in the annual report as a negative that it would behoove you to tone-down in the future. |
