Benjamin:
> If you suggest that a consumer roaming service in Europe would have
> different tariffs depending on where tourists originate from, I tend to
> believe that this is rather unlikely.
>
> This would be similar to a public phone box that would ask for 10 cents
> if the user is recognised as European (transcontinental user) and 20
> cents if the user is Australian/American/Asian/African (intercontinental
> user).
Or, to sharpen the analogy, a public phone box that charged 10 cents for
Europeans, 12 cents for Americans and Australians, 5 cents for Africans, 7
cents for Koreans, and 20 cents for Japanese, on credit cards calls.
With none of them seeing a nationality-based price list posted in the booth,
so nobody gets angry (at least until they're back home and see the bill.)
What it's *like* is irrelevant -- the question is: what *is* it? And how
can you employ price discrimination to make more money with it? Price
discrimination is, of course, a horrible, horrible thing. Unethical.
Immoral. Probably there is something about this in the Koran, if you read
imaginatively enough.
Still, companies use price discrimination, wherever they can get away with
it, to make money. There is nothing I've seen in your technical case that
argues against such a business case -- if anything, the technology enables
it, even automates it.
> BTW, there is strong relevance to Japan.
>
> A "visited network charges" based roaming service in Europe would (due
> to its simplicity and the availability of a GSM/PHS dual handset by NEC)
> allow Japanese users to roam seamlessly in Europe at reasonable rates.
>
> This would be a benefit to Japanese consumers but also Japanese business
> travellers.
But would be money left on the table to the telcos, so why would they bother
with equal treatment? Especially, as I've noted, since Japanese don't vote
in Europe.
All the technical simplicity in the world won't change human nature.
> Furthermore, it would allow Japanese manufacturers to gain ground in the
> GSM handset market, as GSM/PHS handsets would eventually have a raison
> d'etre.
Eventually. But, as Keynes said, "in the long run, we're all dead." Telcos
have to think about making money now. Or be dead even in the short run.
> This would be even more so, if Asian GSM operators also start to offer
> "visited network charges" based roaming, because most Asian countries
> have adopted PHS as cordless technology allowing operators there to
> provide a low cost GSM/PHS based cordless-to-wireless roaming facility
> (which is not possible in the traditional model without constructing
> complex and expensive IN based VPN services).
Yeah, but most Asians are poor. As long as they are roaming around mainland
Asia, that doesn't matter so much. But again: I'm talking intercontinental.
EU telcos might shrug and give Koreans and Chinese cheap roaming, because
they aren't going to make much money off them anyway -- price discrimination
might not be worth it.
But why would EU telcos give cheap roaming to Japanese tourists and business
travelers, if they didn't have to? And what political constituency within
the EU is strong enough to force the issue in favor of the Japanese, and why
would they want to?
You're getting an A+ on technology here, Benjamin, but a C- on business and
a D (to be charitable) on politics.
-michael turner
leap@gol.com
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Sat Oct 13 06:03:16 2001