Re: cr> alternative delivery systems


Sender: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore)

4/19/96, Glen Raphael wrote:
>>Richard Moore wrote:  <----***---- [NOT]
>>And the alternative delivery systems are a long way from being competitive
>>or widely affordable.  Have you priced a cellular phone lately?

        This quote is from Audrie, not me.  I wouldn't seek to base my own
arguments on specific spot prices, as there will probably be a lot of
volatility as the monopolization scramble gets underway.

>The fact that cellular bandwidth is so expensive is actually a good
>illustration of why we need MORE telecom reform. If television frequencies
>were transferable property, the price of a cellular call in some major
>metropolitan areas would drop about in half overnight.

        Well, yes, that would be the neoliberal theory -- but it ain't
necessarily so.  As the spectra are auctioned off under the new regime, the
bidding is likely to be dominated by those with deepest pockets.  Someone
on the roundtable list offered the opinion that only the big players would
even bother bidding.  This is of course open for discussion, but if the
majors do gobble up the spectrum, it's not at all obvious that their
business strategy will be to offer the lowest possible prices.

        More likely, their strategy will be to maximize their overall
profit.  Predicting how that will fall out requires a deeper analysis than
simply noting that increased bandwidth COULD be applied to one or another
specific use.  Part of the game will undoubtedly be temporary loss-leader
offerings, to capture market share, so we can't even extrapolate linerally
from initial developments, imho.


 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.