roundtable: Re: ISSUE LISTNAMEHEREgt; commodity pricing

roundtable: Re: ISSUE > commodity pricing

Re: ISSUE > commodity pricing

Richard K. Moore (rkmoore@iol.ie)
Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:48:17 +0000 

Message-Id: <v02110108ab85e9e32770@[193.120.234.103]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:48:17 +0000
To: roundtable@cni.org
From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore)
Subject: Re: ISSUE > commodity pricing


At 10:42 PM 3/09/95, Fred G Athearn wrote (to roundtable):
   >     I have big problems with this "issue" because the question
   >seems to assume that the market we are talking about will be
   >something that is not a competitive market, but one whose
   >providers are no longer regulated by price tariffs.


Since that is exactly the regime that the new power brokers are pushing,
we should at least analyze it and see if there is a flavor of it that 
we could live with, if necessary.  You can try to oppose "the enemy" on 
a broad front -- more power to you -- but if you don't have an 
accomodation tactic, and a way to sell it when you're cornered, you're 
coming from only a partial strategy.

---
   >     In place of tariffs we are called on design a few simple
   >anti-trust or anti-price discrimination rules.

I agree we should strive for a range of regulatory mechanisms, ones which
enable affordable public uses while at the same time facilitating dynamic
development of new markets.  But in this era of the "deregulation feeding
frenzy" we need to keep our heads, and distill out how we can get most of
what we need, with the minimum of regulatory language.

And we need to seek allies among the commercial "players".  In particular
we can find community of interest with all the CONTENT OWNERS who would
rather not compete with telcos as publishers, and who would rather buy
their transport at reasonable and predictable prices.

---
   >     Given the fact that whatever Newt may want, the position of
   >the present administration (last time I heard) was still that
   >regulation will stay until competition exists, it seems like bad
   >leadership for us to now try to map out a system where
   >unregulated monopolies would be somewhat controlled by a few
   >rules about pricing methods.

The present administration displays a pattern of serious back-pedaling 
on every intiative opposed by big-business.  After the Republican 
landslide, the Clinton crowd is the lamest flock of ducks since 
hostage-crisis Carter.  They'd sell their souls (and our future) to get 
their name on "The Historic Communication Bill of 1995".  I don't see 
what Gingrich would have done differently than Gore at the G7, other 
than creating more entertaining TV coverage of the event.

Good leadership, like good generalship, comes partly from a an
understanding of the enemy's range of options, and working out a "best
tactic" for each potential battle ground.  Keep in mind Woodrow Wilson --
the classic example of someone who stuck with his intial single-minded
strategy all the way to the grave, and consequently lost every single 
point on the way down.

---
   >     If we are just talking here about some future time when
   >there is a true free market for telecommunications then we can
   >expect, almost by definition, to have commodity pricing.  Only
   >a monopolist or a gangster is in a position to demand a piece of
   >the action (aka value pricing).

IMHO, you're thinking too much in black & white terms: either fully
competitive or fully monopolistic.  It's more likely to be a mixed bag,
with differences between urban & rural, news & entertainment, carrier
market & content market, etc.


 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
 Posted by --  Richard K. Moore --  rkmoore@iol.ie --  Wexford, Ireland
 List owner for --  CYBER-RIGHTS & CYBERJOURNAL --  Ask to see the FAQs
 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~

[CNI Home Page]