Re: [802SEC] "Get IEEE 802" comments
I do agree that IEEE-SA seems to lack sufficient incentive to develop
other revenue. Under the current agreement, they don't need to worry
about this, because IEEE 802 participants are expected to make up the
difference. That was the basis of my original email, which addresses
the weak support for the sale of individual IEEE 802 standards and
drafts.
On other other hand, I do not support the suggestions that we move to
a "nominal fee" for Get IEEE 802 downloading. We discussed this
possibility in the early days of the program. At that time, there was
a widespread belief that a fee, however small, would be a big burden.
In many corporate situations, people would still require a company
OK, which would introduce a delay for them. Also, if we collect by
credit card, we rule out distribution to many people in the world who
don't have one.
I would prefer that we look for revenue elsewhere: sales of
pre-program standards and drafts, plus a renewed look at advertising
and sponsorship.
Roger
At 12:27 PM -0500 06/03/15, Mike Takefman (tak) wrote:
>Or to be a **** disturber, find another way to
>fulfill the delivery of GET802. I bet 802 could
>find a very economic way to distribute and
>charge for pdf downloads, get the money into
>our own bank account and then give IEEE-SA a
>check along with our per attendee fee.
>
>In fact, it might work so well, we can decrease
>our per attendee fee.
>
>So its in IEEE's interest to fix their problem,
>lest we fix it ourself.
>
>cheers,
>
>mike
>
>-------------------------------------------
>
>Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
>Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
>Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:58 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] "Get IEEE 802" comments
>>
>> Our discount rate and fees last time I checked are below the
>> amounts quoted below for our registration merchant account.
>> Part of that low rate is because of the large average
>> transaction amount, but even if the transaction amount is
>> small, discount and fees are only a fraction of the $25
>> charged to IEEE-SA for fulfillment. Any of you can do the
>> math on one of John's financial reports to see what our
>> credit card processing costs are now. The credit card
>> discount and fees are not the problem here.
>>
>> As was discussed at the 802 Chair's meeting on this topic,
>> the problem is an IEEE policy that mandates that IEEE-SA use
>> an internal resource for fulfillment that carries a charge
>> $25. I have no idea if the $25 is the real cost of the
>> service or even the burdened cost, or if there is significant
>> margin in the $25 charge that flows to IEEE. If I recall the
>> discussion correctly, using any other service requires
>> approval of the IEEE board.
>>
>> IEEE-SA staff heard plenty of complaint and suggestions for
>> alternative services during the Chair's meeting. The
>> challenge isn't to find an economical way to do fulfillment
>> on pdf sales, it is to get acknowledgement and action from
>> IEEE that the current internal service and rate is not
>> competitive and IEEE needs to change policy so that IEEE-SA
>> can be competitive.
>>
>> --Bob Grow
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rick Alfvin [mailto:alfvin@ieee.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:56 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] "Get IEEE 802" comments
>>
>> If that is the source of the charge, I can offer up links to
>> well establsihed credit card processing services that charge
>> a transaction fee of $0.30 plus 2.9% of the charge. This
>> would reduce the fee from $25 to
>> $0.45
>> per transaction.
>>
>> On 3/15/06, Harry Worstell <hworstell@research.att.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Carl,
>> >
>> > The $25 cost is the processing fee for the credit card for
> > the $5 down
>> > load.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
>> >
>> > Harry R. Worstell
>> > Sr. Technical Specialist
>> > Communications Technology Research
>> > AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>> > Vice Chair, IEEE 802.11 Working Group
>> > Room B233, Building 103
>> > 180 Park Avenue
>> > P.O. Box 971
>> > Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>> > Phone: +1 (973) 236-6915
>> > Cell +1(973) 727-5564
>> > Fax: +1 (973) 360-5873
>> > EMAIL: hworstell@research.att.com
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@WK3C.COM]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:58 AM
>> > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] "Get IEEE 802" comments
>> >
>> > I don't think it's acceptable to increase our participants'
>> cost for
>> > supporting the program beyond where it is now.
>> >
>> > As I tried to discuss, but there wasn't time during the Friday EC
>> > meeting in Denver, I just can't understand how it "costs" $25 to
>> fulfill
>> > a .pdf download. (I may have misunderstood, but my
>> understanding was
>> > that was the reason stated as to why a nominal (say $5) charge per
>> > download from Get 802 "wasn't a viable option" to further
>> support the
>> > program without increasing our participants' per meeting session
>> costs.
>> >
>> > As I said, it seems to me that the incremental cost of a
>> .pdf download
>> > is negligible and I don't understand why simply changing
>> the price (to
>> > something like $5) 6 months after 802 standards are published isn't
>> > viable.
>> >
>> > I'd like to hear a good explanation of what I'm missing so
>> that I can
>> > understand it and we could see if we could figure out a way to fix
>> this.
>> >
>> > Carl
>> >
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:59 AM
>> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>> > > Subject: [802SEC] "Get IEEE 802" comments
>> > >
>> > > Karen,
>> > >
>> > > Every time we discuss the Get IEEE 802 budget, it gets me to
>> thinking
>> > > about the program itself, and how it might be improved, or even
>> > > maintained.
>> > >
>> > > So, I have the following comments:
>> > >
>> > > *The "Get IEEE 802 Program Agreement" says "Documents
>> subject to the
>> > > wait period will be listed on the website with a link to a site
>> where
>> > > the documents may be purchased." However, I don't see
>> such links at
>> > > the site:
>> > > http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802
>> > > In fact, I don't ever recall seeing such links, even though I've
>> > > brought up this issue a few times over the years. There
>> is a pointer
>> > > to the IEEE Store, but that's not the same thing; the Store is an
>> easy
>> >
>> > > place to get lost, and it does not include a list of available
>> > > 802 documents.
>> > >
>> > > *Are sales of drafts included in the Get IEEE 802 budget? I think
>> IEEE
>> >
>> > > could do a better job of promoting them for sale.
>> > > It's nice that the web page has two links to the draft sale page.
>> > > Unfortunately, both of those links are dead, because they
>> point to
>> > > ILI. ILI has not been offering 802 drafts since November 1.
>> > >
>> > > *As usual, we discussed the statistical profiles of the
>> downloaders
>> > > when we met last week. However, I suspect that this data
>> may be out
>> of
>> >
>> > > date. I say this because, when I went to download
>> standards today, I
>> > > did not receive the survey form. [Neither did I receive a
>> "Terms and
>> > > Conditions" page to accept.] I found the same results on two
>> different
>> >
>> > > browsers.
>> > >
>> > > Before we next meet to talk about the program budget, can
>> you see if
>> > > IEEE can review the web site?
>> > >
>> > > Roger
> > > >
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.