Is it that investors need to provide the roof top too, so it’s a way to reach out to property owners?
I do understand your capital requirements in X years down the line.
I also respect your goal of decentralisation and community ownership. (As an aside, what does ownership mean? If illegal things were to happen on my PoP are you saying I am liable?)
Yet, my question stands: Why do you want USD 2M in cash from retail investors today? Why not self-fund the first X PoPs, show it works, then scale?
It sounds like this $2M raise is an experiment more than the end goal.
I think I understand, and it's similar to how railways in the US were built. Savvy investors won't cover the tsunami of small region losses you'll need to scale quickly. They'll only want to fund dense, urban markets with the lowest risk.
But isn't the centralization happening here too? Since the investment capital has term-limited returns, eventually the equity and equipment belong to wifi-dabba.
Why should one expect a different outcome?
Traditionally the franchise model allows for small entrepreneurs to tackle local problems while benefiting from economies of scale. In this case, small entrepreneurs can tackle connecting at the neighborhood level while wifi dabba can negotiate bulk equipment rates and tackle things like support. It's hard to scale out something like laying wire in a neighborhood because ultimately you have to hire people that don't really care about the business. They're less effecient and effective than a franchise owner who has a profit motive.
> Fully managed service Be an absentee landlord
...
> Senior engineers from Google, Apple and a host of other technology companies purchased the PoPs.