[9252] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: an Internet buying coop?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sun Dec 26 17:01:15 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 16:00:24 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, tenney@netcom.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199312262149.AA14627@world.std.com> from "Barry Shein" at Dec 26, 93 04:49:58 pm
>
> The underlying assumption is that unmetered service will ultimately
> cost less than metered service, or provide significantly more access
> for the same $$$ price (same thing really.)
For some people it will.
> Another assumption is that one can achieve this by merely making
> unmetered service available as an option (or the only option.)
Nope. Some people will think that the unmetered price is a ripoff, and
others will think the metered price is a ripoff. However, by giving the
consumer a choice, you allow <them> to make the determination instead of
just saying "screw those who don't like <this> choice".
> What's missing, and perhaps implicit, is the part about where this
> something for nothing will come from? Surely there would be nothing to
> discuss unless someone was getting more for their $$$.
Something for nothing? I don't understand.
> c) Service providers could cut costs by cutting quality of services,
> eg, staff, equipment per customer, etc. to make up for any lost income
> or market unreality caused by flat-rates. That is, put more bread
> crumbs in the hamburger and cut the price of hamburgers and everyone
> will be happy.
d) Service providers are offering multiple classes of service, and when
they get down to the last line on the balance sheet the ink is black so
they're happy to do it this way -- and their customers are happy to have
the choice of billing plans.
If a particular class of service is unprofitable to provide you can bet
the market will provide a correction soon enough (someone will go broke
or have to change their pricing).
> For example, you might be able to get govt to regulate pricing
> (something often alluded to here) but you can't get govt to hold a gun
> to our heads to not then leave the business and open a cute little
> corner cafe' instead. It's a fine line one has to walk, but just
> ignoring the real essence of the problem is just irresponsible.
That's correct. If the "everything ought to be free" crowd actually manages
to get legislation passed which puts an outrageous burden on myself or other
network providers we can just say "screw this" and go sell flowers on a
streetcorner or something similar.
> And those not-bottom-of-the-barrel example prices are quite on the
> mark, since people here have already rejected inexpensive dial-in
> connections to the internet as being just too low-ball for their
> tastes.
For their tastes, yes. For their <needs>? Probably not, or else their
"needs" aren't in line with their pocketbook. I "need" a Mercedes, but I
can't afford one, so I drive something less expensive.
> Why do I get the feeling I'm whistling into the wind...
>
> -Barry Shein
I don't think you are.....
--
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.
