Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Get IEEE 802(tm) program re commendation


At 11:18 AM 4/29/02 -0600, wrote:


It may be inaccurate to assume that the number of downloads will stay the
same if one charges a fee. I suspect that some people download pretty
casually because it is free. I know that I sometimes download from Get802
because it is the easiest way to get a current standard. IEL takes more key
strokes to get to the point where one searches for the standard includes all
the old editions so you have to look through the list for the right one. If
Get802 wasn't free, then I would probably download from IEL or my meeting

I agree, although the time that it took to download 802.3 was not trivial even over a LAN.
In that vein, the IEEE should not assume that all of those downloads represented a lost revenue sale. Obviously, if the "cost" to retrieve my purchased copy falls below the "free" download "cost" then I will burrow around and retrieve my purchased copy.

Any attempt to fund the program through fees on downloads should assume a
significant drop in downloads (maybe as high as 50%).



-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O []
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:40 PM
To: ''; 'IEEE802'
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Get IEEE 802(tm) program
re commendation

Colleagues,  I will vote DISAPPROVE on this motion with the following strong

* I do not believe the adjustment from 6-month hold to 12-month is in any
way acceptable, particularly for standards such as 802.3 which are
frequently replaced with an enhanced complete edition, since it will tend to
make those standards almost continuously unavailable under the current
process.  I might be willing to consider this amendment if it also contained
the amendment that during the black-out period, the previous version of the
standard would continue to be available (with the appropriate warning that a
later edition had been approved and could be purchased).  But most of the
base material of the standard has not changed and should not become
unobtainable just because some new material was added.  We're paying for
"Free Standards" but we're getting "Unavailable Standards", which is not
such a good deal in my book. 
* I do not believe there is any compelling evidence to justify further
restrictions to an already too-limited program.  The whole idea behind the 3
year trial period was to give us time to gather some meaningful data on true
revenue impact.  I think just the sales of the new 802.3 edition alone may
very well cause a significant adjustment in the ongoing revenue stream and
offset any temporary shortfall which may have occurred. 
* I would prefer that we investigate other alternatives to ongoing funding
if there is indeed a net shortfall, rather than hanging all our hopes on
corporate generosity, which is certainly at low tide now during these lean
times.  My company, Boeing (#10 on Fortune 500), said, "Don't even ask!"
when approached on the subject.  3-5 years ago there would have been plenty
of willing sponsors, but today we're looking at nada.  Times change, so
should our strategies.  A nominal fee (e.g. $2 - $5) charged for each
downloaded copy would generate a significant amount of revenue per year when
the number of copies being downloaded is running at 500K per year. 
* Finally, I think it's an extremely BAD negotiating tactic (and I do know
something about this) to go to the bargaining table with an "acceptable
fallback position" already pre-approved.  It virtually guarantees you will
end-up there.  Instead you go in with exactly what you DO want, fight for
that as hard as you can with no hint that there's an alternate plan.  If you
do ultimately reach a point of insurmountable impasse, then you withdraw to
consider whether or not there is an acceptable "Plan B".  Based on all of
what went on during the negotiation, you may find that's there a much better
Plan B to choose than what you might have thought going in.  But if we start
off with the acknowledgement that 12 months is OK, then that's the best that
we will get.  {They do read our email, you know.} 

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
Ph:  (425) 865-2443
Fx:  (425) 865-6721

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:13 AM
To: 'IEEE802'
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BALLOT +++ Get IEEE 802(tm) program

Dear SEC,

This is an SEC email ballot on a recommendation to be made by the IEEE 802
SEC to the IEEE-SA regarding the Get IEEE 802(tm) program as moved by Geoff
Thompson, seconded by Bill Quackenbush.

The email ballot opens on Friday April 26 9AM EDT and closes Friday May 3rd

As a result of the extensive discussions between representatives of the SEC
(Nikolich, Thompson, Frazier) and IEEE-SA staff (mostly Jerry Walker) and
with some participation by Jim Carlo (who is on the BoG) I propose the
following motion:

802 SEC Motion
Moved by:       Geoff Thompson, 1st Vice Chair
Second by:      Bill Quackenbush

That the following choice be offered to the IEEE-SA regarding the "Get IEEE
802 (tm)" program:

1) Extend the program as per the original agreement until the next annual
review date (May 15, 2003). The following adjustment to the original terms
would not negate this choice: Change of the new standard hold-back period
from 6 months to 12 months.

802 approves continuation of ongoing support for the program on a year by
calendar year basis at the original rate of $75 per person per 802

2) Terminate the program as of the annual review date (May 15, 2002). 802
would cease payment of support funds.


Paul Nikolich
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
cell:    857.205.0050
mail:   18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940