←back to thread

1135 points carride | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
boplicity ◴[] No.32415153[source]
He's getting $2.6 million to set up access to 417 homes. That works out to $6,235 per home. At $55 per month, it would take 113 months, or over 9 years just to get $2.6 million in revenue.

Horrible economics! What a crazy business to be in. No wonder grants like this are necessary.

replies(6): >>32415254 #>>32415274 #>>32415325 #>>32415334 #>>32415347 #>>32415553 #
capableweb ◴[] No.32415347[source]
The actual price they are offering seems to be $55 or $79/month + ~$200 installation fee. Also missing in your calculation, is a $30/month subsidy from FCCs "Affordable Connectivity Program".

I didn't make the calculation myself, but a sub-10 year horizon for a project someone seems to do from the goodness of their heart, doesn't seem so bad.

replies(1): >>32415680 #
the_watcher ◴[] No.32415680[source]
Including the installation fee and $30/mo subsidy (I am assuming this means the price he receives is $30 higher than the one customers pay), my quick math shows it would take a bit over 71 months (almost 6 years) to hit $2.6M in total revenue. However, that assumes literally every customer chooses the $55/month plan, if everyone chose the $79/mo plan, it would take almost 51 months, or a bit over 4 years (obviously the number will be somewhere in between that).

Also, this math assumes no growth whatsoever in homes served or other revenue lines. I assume adding another home will be far cheaper than building out the core network, and the article itself notes other lines of business. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a terrible investment to me. There are certainly better ones in a pure ROI point of view, but for government investments? More of these please!

replies(2): >>32416113 #>>32416468 #
1. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.32416468[source]
You are completely ignoring any operating costs. For all we know monthly profit could be negative, and not 100%.