I’d like to relate a little side discussion I have had with a colleague in the wake of my ‘wireless pricing‘ posting from last week.

He wrote me:

the focus of the ads and campaigns is the package, not the price per minute – there’s no focus on price (whether on a per minute or monthly basis) whatsoever – I don’t think the average consumer does that calculation and that’s where the confusion comes in – you can’t compare apples to apples – obfuscation rules!!!

He added a couple dozen exclamation points, so excuse me for having abridged the quotation.

My reply to him was to look at the personal computer marketplace, and compare it to mobile services. I think there may be a few comparisons. Both are ‘high tech’ productivity devices. The government would like to see all of us using them. For PCs, there seem to be 3 price points: entry level of around $500; mid-level around $1000; and power user (multi-media, gaming) around $1800. Each supplier offers bundled systems around these price ranges and you can take each package and enhance it until you reach the point that you might be better off with the next level of bundled capabilities.

The focus for the PC ads is the package. I don’t see PCs being sold on a dollar per MHz of CPU or cents per MB of storage basis. Still, I don’t think anyone would suggest that there isn’t price competition for PCs. I’d like to have that gaming computer with the 22 inch wide-screen flat panel, dual DVD drives …

Still, would anyone argue that we need a government subsidy to help a new computer company get into the market?

We have sent our brochure for printing for The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit. The brochure will be distributed in an upcoming issue of Computing Canada.

Do we still need printed brochures? What format do you prefer?

You can download the latest version for 2007 by clicking here.

Technorati Tags:
Telecom Summit

The FCC has launched an inquiry into net neutrality, although the language they used was an inquiry “into broadband market practices.”

The FCC’s press release invites comments on:

• How broadband providers are managing Internet traffic on their networks today
• Whether providers charge different prices for different speeds or capacities of
  service
• Whether our policies should distinguish between content providers that charge
  end users for access to content and those that do not
• How consumers are affected by these practices

The Notice of Inquiry further seeks comment on whether the Policy Statement should incorporate a new principle of nondiscrimination and, if so, how would “nondiscrimination” be defined, and how would such a principle read.

The Chair, Kevin Martin added:

We have the dual responsibilities of creating an environment that promotes infrastructure investment and broadband deployment and to ensure that consumers’ access to content on the Internet is protected. We can best fulfill these responsibilities by being fully informed.

The Notice of Inquiry process is being criticized by two of the Commissioners (Adelstein and Copps) as being too lengthy. They would have preferred a procedure such as NPRM, that sets out a proposed rule making for comment by all parties. The majority echo the sentiments of the Chair.

As such, it appears to me that this process is to assert FCC control of the debate. Some advocates of net neutrality have begun to cast the issue in terms of ‘truth in advertising’ – perhaps to move the debate under the Federal Trade Commission. Their position is that non-neutral networks may be permitted, but cannot be sold as ‘the internet.’

Earlier this week, the UK regulator, Ofcom indicated that it believes that there are sufficient anti-discrimination provisions to deal with net neutrality concerns already existing within the EU regulatory framework.

We’ll keep on eye on this file.

Technorati Tags:
FCC, Ofcom, net neutrality