[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0306241949.2efabf4@posting.google.com> on 24 Jun 2003 20:49:53
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<qI3Ka.5169$%3.266701@typhoon.sonic.net>...

>> Or they could get more efficient, and find ways to minimize and/or offset the
>> cost.
>
>True- albeit simplistic...

Not at all simplistic.

>"Minimize" the cost, by definition, means
>there will still be a cost to pass on, however small,

Not necessarily.

>and "offset"
>really is a cute way of saying "pass it on to the customer."

Just the opposite.

>The
>wireless business generates it revenues from customers. Where else
>but from those customers will they get any money to "offset?"

From other cost savings.

>> A monopoly has no incentive to do that, which is why you tend to see
>> such things on your bill as an increase in price. The beauty of a competitive
>> market is that suppliers have a strong incentive to do that, which is why
>> prices tend to go down as the level of competition increases.
>
>We've gone around this road already, ...

So no point in going around again.

>> What makes me feel better is increased competition.
>
>Wireless currently has a churn rate of what, 35% annually or so?

Much less than that. (Feel free to prove me wrong, but only with real data.)

>> WNP really isn't a "service" -- it's removal of a barrier to competition.
>
>If it's a option that requires inter-carrier cooperation, it's a
>service.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. There is already a requirement for
inter-carrier cooperation.

>I'm not against consumer protectionism, but this is a free market.

If it were a free market, then WNP wouldn't be an issue.

>There are always some "barriers" to complete competition.

I have no objection to natural barriers, only artificial ones.

>If you want
>to regulate cell carriers, fine- regulate them.

I don't.

>But if not, let THEM
>introduce services we want based on market demands.

I'm all for that (which has nothing to do with WNP).

>If the government
>won't even bother to force "handset portability" via a single national
>digital standard, why bother with number portability or any other
>"portability?"

Because ownership of numbers in not a natural monopoly -- it was created by
regulation.

>If I had to choose which is a bigger barrier to
>competition, I'd say my inability to take a $500 PocketPC Phone from
>T-Mo's GSM to Verizon's CDMA might rate a bigger "barrier" for me than
>taking my phone number!

I'd disagree. There are now three major GSM carriers, which seriously worries
the CDMA folks, as it should.

>> The notion that your phone number belongs to a carrier rather than to you is a
>> throwback to days when that was the only practical way to do it. Technology
>> has now come more than far enough to make personal numbers practical. It's a
>> change that's long overdue.
>
>Where did any of us ever get the notion that any number "belongs" to
>us anyway?

Why not? It is, after all, a public trust. Carriers did not create these
numbers.

>Until I can take a New York phone number to L.A. with me,
>the notion of "portability" is pretty limited anyway, isn't it?

That will probably change too.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/> HELP PAGES FOR
CINGULAR GSM + ERICSSON PHONES: <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>