roundtable: Re: ISSUELISTNAMEHEREgt; commodity pricing

roundtable: Re: ISSUE> commodity pricing

Re: ISSUE> commodity pricing

Mary Gardiner Jones (mgjones@apt.org)
Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:05:26 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 08:05:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Mary Gardiner Jones <mgjones@apt.org>
Subject: Re: ISSUE> commodity pricing
To: roundtable@cni.org
In-Reply-To: <v02110101ab6b492c125a@[193.120.234.107]>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9503070843.B14563-0100000@idi.net>


I want to echo Richard Moore's plea that the roundtable get involved 
in this pricing issue. It comes up in connection with the INternet 
and it is of course deeply involved in other transmission modes. I 
don't udnerstand it well enough to comment but I would appreciate 
getting some learning from others on the various alternatives and 
their imjpact on consumer usage which to me is the only or at least 
the most important criterion.

Mary Gardiner Jones
Alliance for Public Technology (APT)	|   Internet:	mgjones@apt.org


On Tue, 21 Feb 1995, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> 
> Mary Gardiner (to roundtable)>
> >Just a footnote to Paul's observations about giving terminals away.
> >Remember Eastman Koday eventually virtually gave the camera away in 
> >order to sell film, ditto Gillette which gives the razor away in order 
> >to sell the blades. We should try to persuade the carriers to do the 
> >same thing in order to sell usage or the information providers in order 
> >to sell their services and products.
> 
> I thinks this is an excellent proposal.  If we can get carriers to 
> sell channel capacity at commodity rates, that would solve the
> public-affordablity problem, minimize monopolies of various sorts, and
> assure maximum market development -- all within a natural free-market
> framework.
> 
> In order to get the telcos to go for this, we would need to endorse 
> their right to own content, so that they could see a high-profit upside 
> potential for themselves in cyberspace.
> 
> But it leaves one pricing issue still dangling: shall the tariff be based
> on <CHANNEL RESOURCES USED> or on <CONTENT VALUE>?  I've brought this up
> several times before, but the lists haven't taken it seriously.  PLEASE
> COMMENT.
> 
> If the pricing BASIS is left up to the carriers, they will have every
> incentive to charge based on CONTENT VALUE: this would enable them to 
> make a profit on "small" messages as well as "large" movies.  In the 
> CHANNEL RESOURCES approach, voice packets and text packets will be very 
> cheap indeed, sharply minimizing carrier profits in those markets.
> 
> Hence I predict this will be a tough sell.
> 
> THOUGHTS??
> 
> 
>            ==============================================        __---__
>  (o)    ____________________________________________________    -   |   -
>  / \   />-- posted by: Richard K. Moore <rkmoore@iol.ie> --<\  -    |    -
> /___\ />--- Wexford Town, Ireland  :: Loch Garman, Eire ----<\ -   /|\   -
>      /--------------------------------------------------------\ -_/ | \_-
>     />- Don't let the grinch steal cyberspace -<\*Guard your   \   ---
>    /*>- CYBERSPACE INC won't have listservs! --<*\ Cyber Rights*\
>   /-> Ask to see >--> CyberRights Campaign FAQ <--\ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ \
>  /________________________________________________________________\

[CNI Home Page]