Re: Cost Discussions
Thanks for the reminder and link.
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:10 AM
Subject: Cost Discussions
> Phil,
>
> IEEE-SA is sensitive about cost discussions to avoid the perception,
> no matter how removed from reality, that there is an undercurrent of
> price fixing.
>
> The EC discussed this a few years ago:
> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg01301.html
>
> Roger
>
>
> At 18:11 -0500 2004-07-27, Phillip Barber wrote:
> >Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. But the point still stands. I
can
> >see why you would want to consider it in an HO Policy engine, except IEEE
> >does not allow you to use 'Cost' when it pertains to dollars as a
requirment
> >or method for standards. So we usually use 'Complexity of implementation'
or
> >something similar. You would normally have to find some allowed
alternative,
> >but it looks like you decided to whack that section since it seems to
> >pertain to HO Policy, so it does not seem to matter.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Phil
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Peretz Feder" <pfeder@lucent.com>
> >> To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
> >> Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 6:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [802.21] Comments on 802.21 Requirements document
> >>
> >>
> >> > Phil:
> >> >
> >> > The cost here is not reflecting complexity of implementation but
rather
> >> > particular cost of interface (say free for wireline) vs. cost of
3GPP
> >(say
> >> $25
> >> > per 10Mbytes). That is real cost of the link as one of the parameter
> >used
> >> in the
> >> > decision to switch networks and hence cost.
> >> >
> >> > Peretz Feder
> >> >
> >>
>
>