Interesting...someone finally raises what really looks like a real exception.
Causes me to suspect rather strongly that there is a monopolist somewhere in
the supply chain. Is NZ's telco a state-protected monopoly?
> Indeed one local service provider here mooted the idea of changing to charge
>by time to it's users, the proposal was rejected quite strongly.
I'd like to know more about this. Unless someobody has locally repealed the
laws of economics, there are some kind of unusual technological or structural
circumstances here that are distorting the market. I'd like to know what they
are.
> Have phone companies gone to allowing unlimited toll calls for a flat
> monthly fee yet?
No, that's why I specified *local* phone service.
> Your arguements rely on a) their being effectively unlimited networking
>resources available to satisfy the customers demands (to prevent users becoming
>dis-satisfied with the flat rate fee they are being charged.) & b) a large user
>base to spread the load over and make the average cost drop to managable
>levels. I don't see this happening in a hurry inside New Zealand.
On the face of it, you make a strong case. I almost believed your implied
argument that the non-viability of charge-by-byte is contingent on a) and b).
Then it occurred to me that this theory fails to retrodict -- it doesn't
explain why charge-by-byte wasn't viable in the U.S. back when the U.S.'s
Internet infrastructure was comparable to NZ's.
Can we develop an explanation for this?
> > Free markets. Ya gotta love 'em.
>
> Oh please. Your rhetoric is irksome.
Not rhetoric, reality. Here in the U.S. we have the free-est telecomms market
in the world. As a direct result, we have the lowest cost-to-consumers. Go
thou and do likewise.
-- Eric S. Raymond <esr@locke.ccil.org> WWW: //www.thyrsus.com/~esr/home.html
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved