LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for NORDNOG Archives


NORDNOG Archives

NORDNOG Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave NORDNOG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: IP-tel
From: Gordon Lennox <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Network management discussion for Nordic region <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:44:29 +0100
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)


Probably mostly right.

But the customer is a slightly more complex beast than that. They may want
to pay as little as possible. They may want to think they are getting good
value (and not being ripped off). But they may also be happy to pay for
something they don't intend to fully use. They may also be happy to pay a
premium to get certainty in billing.

A lot of things are not paid for on a usage (resource consumption) basis:
posting a letter (don't tell me that it costs more to post a letter across
the country than it costs to send one across town<g>), a magazine
subscription (when you don't always read the magazine), a TV license or
cable subscription (during those magic weeks when you are on holiday away
from the box), local phone calls (at least in one country we know<g>). My
ISPs (yes more than one) fit in with that group. My telco / mobile operator
does not and maybe that is why I keep trying to restrict usage.

I do not have the figures anymore but the cost breakdown of a mobile call
still probably shows a surprisingly large chunk devoted to tracking who did
what with whom and where and for how long. Basic bandwidth is going to carry
on getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper (Moore's law of telecoms or
whatever). If a business has the choice then I do not see the choice being
to invest heavily in detailed billing of something whose price is dropping
so fast. You could be quite vulnerable in the market to somebody who decides
instead to invest in providing much more bandwidth. What you want is to
encourage usage to maintain/grow revenues.

Tariff classes (and maybe profiling) - OK. Micro-billing - no.

And so I leave it to Partik to discuss how to manage the tariff
classes...<g>

Gordon

-----Original Message-----
From: Bengt Gördén [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 January 2003 10:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: IP-tel


I'm not sure that the reasoning behind this actually holds. The
transit (TIER1) provider have invested in a network. That network
already have a fixed cost. That means that the provider need to charge
for that ,+ 100% (or another huge percentage), to be able to
survive. The write off (don't know the name of that in English,
Swedish: avskrivning) is at least 15 years for international
networks. So the customer is not paying for the amount of traffic in
the network but rather the investment. So paying for traffic is just
wrong (you could read bullshit if you like but I wouldn't dare to
write such foul language :-). It's all about maximizing income and
minimizing cost and getting the customer to belive "I'm just paying
for what I use".



- Bengan -----------------------------------------------------------
- KTHNOC/SUNET/NORDUnet | http://www.sunet.se/~bengan | 08-7906586 -

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main NORDNOG Page

Permalink



LISTSRV.NORDU.NET

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager