[9247] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: an Internet buying coop?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sun Dec 26 14:08:14 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 13:07:41 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9312261737.AA04514@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com> from "Dick St.Peters" at Dec 26, 93 12:37:01 pm
> > From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
>
> > The trend is <towards> usage-metered services, not away from them. This is
> > nothing new, and I see no evidence that in the voice world it is going to
> > change.
>
> > If this is tolerated in the voice world, why is it not seen as "ok" in the
> > Internet access world?
>
> Karl, I think your choice of words indicates the answer. In the voice
> world, where the telephone is an accepted necessity that few homes,
> much less businesses, would dream of doing without, metered service is
> "tolerated" by businesses. They tolerate it only because they have no
> choice. It is resisted heatedly by the public. I think the evidence
> shows pretty clearly that people do not like metered service.
Yep, it does. Yet they don't dislike it <that> much -- at least not to
the point where they will all convert to a flat-rate charge.
MCSNet, as an example, offers both <unmetered> and <metered> services. We
have plenty of people who like both. That surprised me, as I assumed that
people would NOT go for the metered approach at all, and that I'd convert
nearly all of them in very short order.
Didn't happen. And yet I send out bills regularly for time in excess of
that which would be charged for an un-metered account. 'Tis funny like
that. I would assume that the people on the metered access are watching the
bills over some period of time and convert when it no longer makes sense.
> The Internet is still trying to earn its place among the gotta-haves.
> It is trying to look attractive. Metered service goes a long way
> toward making it look less attractive.
>
> So we have a dilemma:
> The Internet needs to be loved.
> People hate metering of services.
> The Internet has to be paid for.
Indeed, this is the problem. The long-haul line cost issue is a real one,
but the bigger issue is the local access problem.
When you can buy T1s locally and across the country for $200 a month then
you'll be somewhere and the cost will shift to that of providing the <service>
and <machines> behind the scenes. Right now the majority of what my
subscribers pay go to one company or another in the performance of the
services needed to make it happen, or the hardware needed in one form or
another (amortization, expansion, replacement fund, etc).
If I make a poor buying decision the result is that I'll lose in the glaring
light of free competition, and go down in flames. Trust me, I don't pay out
the money I do to the phone company out of <choice>, and if I thought I could
do this successfully with less income per subscriber I'd certainly look at
trying to screw the other people in this market even worse by doing exactly
that.
This is called "capitalism" and is usually good for the consumer's
wallet size and goods or services purchased per buck spent. :-)
What providers such as myself are concerned about is a monopoly interest
forming that controls something of severely limited supply (such as wire
plant to the homes, or RF spectrum) and effectively screwing us out of
the marketplace. THAT is the place where government regulation is, IMHO,
warranted.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
