Today, consumers simply call Domino’s, 1-800 Flowers, or Roto-Rooter and, voila, something or someone shows up. Tomorrow, Internet-based companies will have to solve logistics problems that are thousands of times more complex. That’s because on-line commerce will require delivering far more things, in far more shapes and sizes, to far more people at far more locations.

Yet, when people talk about the logistical problems of the Internet, they tend to focus on what’s known as the “last mile” problem. In other words, they worry primarily about how to speed communication by running fat electronic pipes into the 100 million American homes.

In fact, the analog version of the last-mile problem—how to actually deliver all those products and services that people order on-line—is at least as complicated as the electronic plumbing. Existing delivery services don’t have all the issues covered, mainly because it isn’t always profitable for them to deliver in small quantities to the home.

So, there is huge opportunity for those businesses that can capture a big chunk of the delivery business, and the winners should include many companies that don’t currently consider themselves to be in that business. In any case, every company that plays in the “dot-com” world will have to sort through the increasing array of delivery options.

The opportunities and problems associated with delivery break down into two categories:

PHYSICAL PRODUCTS: These currently include groceries, prescription drugs, film, videos, dry cleaning, prepared meals, and even the mail. All this schlepping is up for grabs.

Incumbents, of course, are the U.S. Postal Service and the big logistics carriers—United Parcel Service, DHL Worldwide Express, and Federal Express. But truckers, such as Yellow Freight, could mount a challenge. Or, why not a big consumer-products company? Imagine if Procter & Gamble owned the fleets of panel trucks that re-supplied “wired” homes with toothpaste, toilet paper, and all the other standard consumables we now get at the supermarket or Wal-Mart.

Here are some methods that companies are, or could be, using:

 Collection centers: Groceries, dry cleaning, and prepared meals could be deposited every day in a center for pickup, perhaps in convenience stores, gas stations, office buildings, or supermarkets. Such centers would be reasonably convenient and would eliminate the need for someone to be home to take delivery. While this approach hasn’t been tried yet, it works well in the world of communications. Information companies push information out to servers around the country, which act as collection centers that users can quickly get access to without tying up the whole network.

 Drop-off boxes: Players like Streamline are installing boxes in garages so they can drop off groceries, videos, film, and prescription drugs. These boxes have a refrigerated compartment for perishables and are accessible only to authorized delivery workers. Again, no one needs to be home, an advantage over services like Peapod and HomeGrocer. The boxes create economies of scope by letting lots of different items share each drop-off box. Still, capital outlays are substantial, and varying delivery cycles mean that photos and dry cleaning, for instance, can’t be dispatched on the same truck.

 Specialization: Among new players, DrugStore.com, MyPharmacy.com, and PlanetRx.com stick to prescription drugs. HotHotHot.com focuses on hot sauces, NetFlix.com on movies. This strategy involves finding a product that generates as much revenue as possible per unit of weight and volume—in other words, something that is expensive but that doesn’t cost much to deliver via existing companies, such as UPS. The problem is that this strategy doesn’t generate much scale, so it isn’t optimal logistically.

 Speed: An interesting start-up called PinkDot is emulating Domino’s Pizza by guaranteeing delivery within 30 minutes. But it offers a broad range of products, much like a 7-11. This strategy has advantages for emergency purchases and will likely hurt convenience stores and fast-food places. However, the economics are small scale, and maintaining service quality will be challenging.

 Starting from scratch: WebVan is building warehouses across the country so it can become more efficient about buying and about filling grocery orders for delivery to homes. Peapod is responding by building its own warehouse network from scratch. Peapod is thus backing away from its original, inefficient approach, which involved having personal shoppers filling orders at local grocery stores. Consumers were charged retail prices, plus a delivery fee and a monthly membership fee. WebVan, which is valued at $4 billion, and Peapod should achieve efficiencies through their radical approach. Of course, retailing giants might simply crush this effort—if they wake up and move fast enough.

SERVICES: Home cleaning, appliance maintenance and repair, lawn and garden care, home repair, child care, and pet care are among the many services that are delivered to consumers at home. Currently, mom-and-pop providers dominate, but the Internet could easily be used to provide interesting combinations of services.

Logically, companies already having large home-services operations should succeed. Sears, ServiceMaster, and the local cable and telecommunications companies come to mind. Utilities dispatch meter readers once a month, so why not build a service network on top of those visits? Perhaps Manpower could leverage its expertise in providing human bodies to send out service people. Other challengers could leverage specific relationships with known customers. National real-estate organizations have a list of new homeowners who might need repairs or appliances. Radio Shack has a database full of customers who may need electronics installation and repairs. Start-ups will get in the game, too. For instance, iMandi serves as a portal where consumers can purchase home services; iMandi then subcontracts the work to third parties.

But any company that wants to provide home services on a significant scale faces three potential problems:

 Doubts about quality: Consumers worry about the reliability of people who come into their homes, so service providers need to establish a certification program. A national brand, such as Sears, could stand behind the work of any subcontractors.

 Fragmentation: Providing services one at a time isn’t very efficient. So, Internet-based companies should find ways to, for example, bundle home maintenance and repair services. That way, in one visit, consumers could have their lawns cut, pests exterminated, and gutters repaired. Providers would cut out much of the travel time that currently makes home services so expensive.

 Lack of scale: Web-based intermediaries could collect orders for plumbing, electrical repair, air conditioning, and so on from individual households. The middlemen could then negotiate with service providers for bulk discounts.

While delivery opportunities may seem as mundane as the milkman used to be, there’s a lot at stake. The Internet has created a consumer expectation of cheap, instant gratification. Until somebody invents teleportation, companies that can move huge amounts of merchandise and services, quickly and efficiently, will clean up.

Sawhney is a professor of electronic commerce and technology at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management. He can be reached at mohans@nwu.edu.