sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (05/06/91)
Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard profit allowance. It seems an incredible coincidence that they *all* would turn out to lie (sic) in such a commonly narrow cost range unless phone company overhead was a major factor in the cost of every service. My suspicious mind would suspect they have found there is a magic range of acceptibility of price beyond which customers more critically examine the cost/benefits of services and the companies seek to keep offerings within this safe range.
klopfens@cis.ohio-state.edu> (05/06/91)
From article <telecom11.334.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, by sichermn@beach.csulb. edu (Jeff Sicherman): > Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's > always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly > price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these > are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard > profit allowance. I attended a recent presentation by a Bell Atlantic representative who explained how the charge for Caller ID was reached. According to him, it was purely market research. That is, through focus groups, telephone surveys, and possibly other techniques, Bell Atlantic found out what people said they would be willing to pay for Caller ID. Based upon their reading of that research, they charge what they feel the market would bear. The perceived value of the service dictates the pricing scheme. I am very interested in other responses to Jeff's question regarding the regulated aspect of pricing. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu Radio-TV-Film Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300
Steve Forrette <forrette@cory.berkeley.edu> (05/08/91)
> The price is determined by what people are willing to pay. In long > distance service, AT&T provides a benchmark. Someone else who wants > to persuade you to buy their service and not AT&T's has to do one of > the following: > 1. Convince you their service is better than AT&T's and worth > a higher price than AT&T charges. > 2. Convince you that they will give you comparable phone service > to what you have been getting from AT&T for a comparable price > and they will be nicer to you than AT&T is. > 3. Convince you that you will be happy with their lower quality > phone service because it costs so much less. I think that one pricing technique has been left out: 4. Set your price at two to three times AT&T's rate, and illegally program your COCOT or Hotel PBX so that the caller cannot reach AT&T. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: But hopefully soon, the programming of public systems so that AT&T cannot be reached will be treated as a vey serious offense and dealt with accordingly. I suspect AT&T is staying away from 800 access and insisting on equal availability via 10288 for very good reason. I think it is part of a game plan to force the hand of the sleaze purveyors, to make them comply. PAT]
carroll@cs.washington.edu> (05/14/91)
In article <telecom11.334.5@eecs.nwu.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's > always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly > price tag of between $3 and $8. Yup. But wait 'til they introduce ISDN... :^) Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com