200 subscribers with 90% coverage of a town-sized city (40k population)? sounds absolutely horrible.
but I really came here to comment on what I think is a financial error: rent vs buy cost. yeah, it seems more expensive to rent if you consider long term ownership of equipment, but this is very misguided. maintaining, repairing, insuring and just storing heavy equipment that you use rarely is just not the way to go. it's cheaper to rent.
nothing to show for the nearly $10,000 in rental fees
you have no long term expenses to show for it. that's a wonderful tradeoff.
Comments
200 subscribers with 90% coverage of a town-sized city (40k population)? sounds absolutely horrible.
but I really came here to comment on what I think is a financial error: rent vs buy cost. yeah, it seems more expensive to rent if you consider long term ownership of equipment, but this is very misguided. maintaining, repairing, insuring and just storing heavy equipment that you use rarely is just not the way to go. it's cheaper to rent.
you have no long term expenses to show for it. that's a wonderful tradeoff.