RE: ISP service pricing models

["tim clifford" <tjc@lacunanet.net>]

is the issue of a better charging method one of business model or technical
implementation?  I can appreciate that better technology models do not
exist, but part of the question is how would an operator charge for service
if technology were not an obstacle.

I believe the Internet fell on to flat rate pricing (for the most part) due
to the virtue of simplicity; more potential subscribers could understand
(and budget for) a flat rate so that was the easiest way to reach as many
consumers as possible.

tc

Tim Clifford, President and CEO
Lacuna Network Technologies, Inc.
5257 River Road  #635
Bethesda, MD 20816
office: 703.812.8560  fax 703.812.8571
mobile: 301.674.0373 email: tjc@lacunanet.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
> Of Atsushi Takeshita
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:08 AM
> To: tim clifford; James Kempf; Chris.Burke@motorola.com;
> more@ops.ietf.org; Roger.Venning@team.telstra.com
> Subject: Re: ISP service pricing models
>
>
> Hello.
>
> > > All this has perhaps little to do with technology, but it seems clear
> > > to me that even if we spend lots of efforts making the technology
> > > scalable, customers won't see the benefit unless the pricing on
> > > both the supplier and the user side is reasonable and scalable too.
> >
> > this is true in spades, the business case was always the
> hardest thing to
> > drive through in the early days of Internet service.
>
> I agree that we need a good pricing method.
>
> However, I think the problem is that we don't have better
> charging method than per packet charge (volume charge)
> for wireless Internet access services.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> TAKESHITA, Atsushi
> DoCoMo Communications Laboratories USA, Inc.
> takeshita@dcl.docomo-usa.com
> Tel: 408-451-4705 / Fax: 408-573-1090
> ------------------------------------------
>
>