John C Klensin wrote:
Noel, I'm slightly more optimistic along at least two other dimensions...
(2) The "no servers unless you pay business rates", and its close
relative, "you don't get to run VPNs, or use your own email address
rather than ours" nonsense you and many others are experiencing is sort
of an old story. In a competitive market, it is also a pretty simple
matter of economics:
* You don't "want" the server and address capability
enough to pay for it, because you consider it
excessively more expensive than the cheap "client"
service. I go ahead and pay for it, both because I have
a higher perception of need and because it is still lots
cheaper, and offers better performance most days, than a
dedicated DS0 from any plausible ISP I've been able to
That's a specious argument; you declare it nonsense that ISPs charge
business rates, but you admit that's what they do, and in fact endorse
it by paying those rates.
* The difference between those "business rates" and
whatever you are paying are mostly determined by a "what
they can get away with" mentality -- we know what the
marginal operational costs are. If those prices stay
high, it is either because there is no alternate
provider, or because there is (illegal) price-fixing
going on, or because no one sees a business opportunity
by operating a business service at a lower margin.
Or because it will cut into their "business" business, which is more to
the point. The telcos are maximizing a pair of profits - business and
consumer, not just consumer. The difference in rates is their attempt to
create two markets, with the simplest amount of effort on their end.
These arguments could be used to justify any status-quo. Some economics
environments evolve because of a shared perception, whether that
perception is complicit or not.