Bait and Switch?

It would appear that MetroFi is now refusing to build networks  
without anchor tenant agreements, regardless of prior contracts.   
After first backing away from cities where they had won bids but not  
signed contracts, MetroFi has now declared that they are halting  
their Portland deployment indefinitely, with a not so subtle  
suggestion that the future of the deployment will hinge on whether  
Portland decides to become an anchor tenant. [1 + 2]

Many people--including PTP members, City Commissioners, Business  
Journalists and bloggers--questioned the MetroFi business plan, and  
suggested that muni-wireless by a private business could not work  
without an anchor tenant. MetroFi, though, insisted at their  
appearance before Portland's City Council that city-generated  
revenues would make up at most 25% of MetroFi's income. Given that  
they made this pronouncement, specifically in response to questions  
about the financial viability of their model, it seems they had the  
opportunity to demand anchor tenancy, but they declined it.

Is this a bait and switch, or is it just a reasonable adjustment for  
market realities?

More importantly, I expect that at this point, they are pushing the  
City to enter into an anchor tenancy agreement, and if you have an  
opinion regarding which course the city should take, I recommend you  
write the Mayor and City Commissioners letting them know what you  
think. [3]

Michael

[1] http://www.kgw.com/video/video-index.html?nvid=181025

[2] http://blog.oregonlive.com/business/2007/10/ 
mayors_office_portland_wifi_ne.html

[3] http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=28533


-- 
The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/
Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate
Un/Subscribe:  http://lists.personaltelco.net/mailman/listinfo/general/
Archives:  http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/
Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette