On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 13:27:53 +0200, Kim Davies wrote:
> Quoting Marty Drill - Nexsta on Sunday June 09, 2002:
> |
> | A price war is not needed mainly due to the reason you have suggested.
> | Domains at $140 for two years is not that expensive.  Reducing the cost
> | by $20 or more (under ACCC rules, Registrars should not discuss actual
> | pricing in this forum)
>
> Which ACCC rules are those? I wouldn't think that a registrar simply
> identifying their price was price collusion.. if it was it would be very
> difficult to conduct business.

Hi Kim

I think Marty is being careful here.  As yet, Nexta has not nominated a retail
price (the suggestion of $99 was mine).  A perception, however vague, that
they were trying to "sound out" the opposition's views could be interpreted as
an attempt at price collusion in terms of the Trade Practices Act.  That seems
to be Marty's concern.

Such an attempt is particularly important in a mature market dominated by a
small number of players.  In the present case, with the introduction of
competition, my view is that the ACCC would not be so strict.  As I said I
expect the price to start at $99 and go rapidly lower.  One of the registrars
will soon compete at $88 including GST then another will go to $77 including
GST.

Like in the global arena, where prices are as little as US$8 a year of which
US $6 goes to Verisign, I's expect the price to move towards a little above
the A$50 being charged by AusRegistry.  This could be $66 including GST or
less.

Thus the success, or otherwise, of a registrar will perhaps depend on whether
they wish to be a low-cost, efficient supplier or an added-value supplier.

Whilst I agree that other aspects of deregulation will have a powerful impact,
I do think that price will make  difference.  As any economist will tell you,
demand will vary according to demand depending on the price elasticity of the
good or service being supplied.

When all factors are considered volumes are sure to increase.  As I say I
expect at least a couple of million in all 2LDs within a year or two.  Time
will tell.

So while Marty does have a point, I agree with you that there is little risk
in a simple declaration by a registrar.  A prosecution for price collusion
would undoubtedly require the ACCC to provide a stronger onus of proof than
that.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
_________________________________________________________
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code).  Anything I write is my
own personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).