Pricing Component for VonagePricing Component for VonageAs we approach the digital age, the need for technological advancement over the existing POTS line has never been greater. POTS (Plain old telephone line), though primitive, and expensive, still provides adequate phone service to its consumer’s home, however it is losing ground dramatically to a newer technology called VoIP (Voice-over-IP). VoIP technology enables its customers to make telephone calls using a broadband internet connection instead of a regular POTS line. VoIP converts the voice signal into a digital signal that travels over the internet, and then when it reaches its destination it converts it back to a voice signal which can be used with any telephone.
Vonage is a company which offers phone service that implements VoIP technology. The biggest advantage that consumers who use Vonage will see, are the enormous cost saving it has over traditional POTS lines. Vonage comes with all the calling features found on a regular POTS line, but at a fraction of the cost. These features include 3 way calling, call forwarding, caller id, and a voicemail service. The calling plans are very affordable. For example, for $24.99, consumers will enjoy unlimited calls to anywhere in the U.S. and Canada. Also, unlike traditional POTS lines, where there are always hidden taxes totaling in excess of $15.00, Vonage’s taxes in total equate to $3.15. The total monthly Vonage phone bill for customers who choose the $24.99 calling plan, will be $28.14, as opposed to the almost $56.00 plus tax the consumer would pay for an equivalent POTS line with the same features.
According to a report from research firm In-Stat/MDR, by 2007 the U.S. VoIP market is forecast to grow to more than five million subscribers, a five-fold increase over 2002 levels. This has prompted telecom giants such as Verizon, AT&T, AVAYA, and many more to enter the VoIP market. Each of these service providers offers competitive pricing calling plans with many features to attract consumers. The impact of these similar, yet competitive calling plans pricing, has creating a pricing war among the VoIP service providers. When one service provider lowers their calling price plan, their competition lowers their calling plans accordingly. For example, Britt (2004) found that “an announcement that AT&T would drop the price of its residential broadband phone service CallVantage from $34.99 to $29.99 per month was followed quickly by an announcement that Vonage would drop the price on their calling plan to $25 from the previous $29.99 (p1)”.
The demand for VoIP service is relatively price elastic. A reduction in VoIP market price will lead to an increase in quantity demanded. The lower VoIP prices will affect the service provider’s revenue, but it will increase penetration into the total voice market because more consumers would be more inclined to subscribe due to the price disparity for the same calling plans and features when compared to a POTS line.
Competition affects consumer demand and price. Consumer demand and price are directly related to one another. When the price of a good or service rises, the amount demanded falls, conversely when the price falls, the amount demanded rises. The competition between VoIP service providers has helped to keep prices low, and this has helped to increase the demand for VoIP service. Quality also affects consumer demand and price. If the quality of the VoIP service is poor, the demand for it will be poor, and the consumer will not want to pay the price. If the quality is good, the demand will be greater, and consumer will be more inclined to pay the price.
To further enhance VoIP service revenue possibilities, the service providers should keep prices low to attract new customers, but not so low that they cannot make a respectable profit. They should also ensure the highest quality service so that existing customers can tell perspective customers of the great quality of service.
One of the largest issues that affects the cost of Vonage’s VoIP service is competition. As larger and more reputable telecom companies enter the VoIP market, it inevitably increases the competition for the same market share. As a response to this increase in competition many VoIP service providers, including Vonage, either lower their prices or add additional features with their service to offset the increase competition, and attract consumers. Mergers and acquisitions of competing VoIP service providers can affect the cost of VoIP service. Mergers and acquisitions reduce competition by reducing the number of VoIP service providers. Company mergers and acquisition can cause the price of the VoIP service provided to increase dramatically, especially if the merging firms have a disproportionately large market share. Consumer demand will also affect the cost of the VoIP service. If the price of VoIP service rises, the demand for the service
[Page 4]
of such services will be much less. In short, more and more competitors and mergers will threaten the future performance of VoIP in Canada, a market that has been stagnant all of its history. And competition for VoIP service will not be healthy. If the price of VoIP service rose dramatically and the demand for VoIP service declined, then competition for VoIP service prices will plummet more and more and will cause Canada to become more competitive. The public can’t afford this.
While many have criticized the continued use of VoIP (also known as P2P VoIP) for certain people and organizations, there is a clear and present danger of these programs being an effective tool for a growing number of large government agencies and businesses. Government agencies and businesses are facing an ever increasing number of legal challenges on the basis of the application of public policy to their activities.
These legal challenges are increasingly about how to address a number of legal issues on which a number of businesses are involved, including a number of the nation’s most effective P2P (telecommunication) programs. Many believe that all three legal categories are so interdependent that it would be impossible in an unprofitable place like Canada to have their public services implemented seamlessly, and the current Public Choice Agreement (PCoA) was designed to address these issues at the municipal level. However, government services offered to business only require a number of licenses, but those licenses include those for services such as telecommunications, landlines, or cable and satellite radio broadcasting. Some have pointed out that these licenses make them unsuitable for small governments to operate, and others say that while these licenses are great, they are not required for every small government. The question will remain that these licenses make it impossible to establish a public service with the capability to conduct P2P VoIP.
In short, there will be many, many, many disputes out there, that will be difficult to resolve in a fair trial, where any one of the following occurs:
A defendant is awarded damages of all types. Some of these damages may be recoverable from all parties, including in case the court finds that a matter was settled through a legal process.
Complaints that an applicant for a P2P VoIP service has alleged wrongdoing in any part of proceedings or has been removed from the service for improper uses.
The applicant files an appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal (where the case is assigned for determination) with regard to the alleged violations. Thereupon, the Court finds that such alleged violations cannot be brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal, subject to a trial on a writ of prohibition. If a motion to strike down a proposed rule, a court with jurisdiction to hear such an appeal appears, to the satisfaction of the Court, not to be satisfied by an attempt to resolve the problem through a court-appointed arbitrator, the proposed rule is thrown out and it is not brought up to the Court of Appeal for trial. Any appeal may be upheld at a later date if the Court of Appeal determines that the rule falls within the Court’s jurisdiction to hear, and the applicant does not pursue a petition for review that seeks to dismiss it, (where one party appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, they may have to decide to take the appeal into the Court of Appeal).
B. The Minister makes some rulings, but they are not final.
A. The Minister finds that
the requirements of the Act apply and that
the regulations give each company the ability to conduct P2P VoIP by its own means, in a manner that is reasonably equivalent to the way a company conducts service under the federal law.
This statement appears to be accurate. It follows from what is well established by the