cr> re: A Kick in the Flat-Fee Access by Meeks


Richard Moore

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996
Sender: Brennon Martin <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> IP: A Kick in the Flat-Fee Access by Meeks


See comments below.

~--<snip of quoted material>--~

>           Fighting this bastard proposal won't be easy. The Bells will
>           argue that the industry is mature. Reality check: it isn't.


>           And once competition arrives, services will be offered on
>           competitive grounds, pitting one company against another in
>           the free market, further dropping rates. Small problem:
>           While waiting for the competition to develop, consumers will
>           be hammered by higher rates.


>           And then there's the bloodletting. Removing the ESP
>           exemption would be the death knell for hundreds of smaller,
>           entrepreneurial Internet Service Providers - the same
>           companies that are creating jobs and adding to the economy.
>           Further, such a move would spur buyouts and consolidation,
>           further reducing competition, defeating the supposedly
>           intended purpose.

        It seems that Meeks has given two arguments against the removal
of flat-fee access.

1.  Prices will be unreasonably high until the industry matures enough to
ensure competition.

2.  While prices are high, small service providers will be squeezed out
so competition may not arrive at all.

        My question is how salient are the phone companies' arguments
that all this extra use of phone networks is chewing up bandwidth.  Have
prices been too artificially low?  Is it reasonable to expect the Bells
not to get re-imbursed for the extra use of the networks?

        Before I get flamed by every hothead with a modem, let me point
out that my reason for raising these questions is to allow us to develop
stronger arguments against the removal of flat-fee access -- not to side
with Ma Bell.

Brennon M. Martin
School of Communications, Box 353740
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3740




        Since you've all got your flamethrowers out anyway, let me give you
another target.  Isn't it in our best long-term interests to support the
principle that prices should be based on costs?  After all, costs will be
getting lower and lower.  If we support cross-subsidies, doesn't that lead
to a lobbyists game that is hard for netizens to win?



 Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
   CyberJournal:  Cyberlib temporarily unavailable
   Cyber-Rights:  http,
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.