Originally Posted by gooddog
1. Come on. If all they are doing is "selling air", then you don't need to buy it.
2. Getting 2% of their subscribers to pony up more could mean 2% more revenue which either is used to upgrade the infrastructure or payout to shareholders. It could be a substantial $ amount.
3. It isn't a 2-tier pricing scheme, it is a 2-tier pricing structure. Nothing scheming about it - use a lot more than the average bear, pay more. People shouldn't have a problem with paying their fair share.
1. the unfortunate trend is that our society is being based more and more around internet access. Eventually it will get to a point where you can't do "normal" tasks without it--we're pretty close to that already. When you get into selling a "necessary" utility, that's when further regulation is needed. That's what he meant (I'm guessing). Not that the company is selling something that has no value.
2. 2% of their subscribers paying more does not mean 2% more revenue.
3. It's a 2-tier pricing scheme (look up the definitions for scheme--it doesn't necessarily imply deceit). It's 2-tier, regardless of whatever word you want to use to describe it, in that a subscriber is first getting charged a high premium for the speed of a package they choose, and then getting charged again with how much data they use (sometimes it's data used beyond a cap limit, sometimes it's not). A proper business model would be either charging the premium, without any added restraint, or charging a small fee (like a "hookup" fee that utility companies charge), and then for the actual data used thereafter. Not a hefty subscriber fee for a speed package, and then another fee for a data-usage package.
The thing is that there isn't a huge price differential that people pay for the lowest-end, lowest-demand users, and the people who use a huge amount of bandwidth. The people on the lower end most definitely are not
paying for what they use, and even the people on the higher end are paying too much
even though they use more than most, because there's no one to step in and make sure pricing is normalized.
Originally Posted by gooddog
ugghhh. I don't want an auditing body looking over internet services. If we had that we would still be using dial-up modems.
Competition has driven services and prices. If there is third party meddling in driving down prices, you are not going to get the internet you want.
Water, gas, electricity all operate as monopolies and there is oversight for that. But look at the cost side too. At least in California, took forever to get remote meter reading capability...and it still doesn't work. We added 10M people in the last couple decades but no more water resevoirs.
Competition between...whom exactly? In a ton of cities, there's only one choice for internet service. In my current town, you can get DSL through AT&T, or you can get cable internet through the local cable company. Those are the only two options. And I don't live in podunknowhere, I live in the bay area of California.
And don't be a drama queen. We wouldn't be on dial up still just because there's some oversight entity to ensure fair pricing for customers. Besides, I'm not saying that 5-10 years ago we needed regulation in this area. I'm saying that we do now, since it's becoming less of a luxury item, and more of a necessity in our society. Same things happened with electricity and water and natural gas as well.
The auditing body I implied was to ensure that prices and services were being delivered to the customers on a fair basis, and that no one company was gouging customers, or double-charging, or not properly investing money into the infrastructure.
And to address this point:
At least in California, took forever to get remote meter reading capability...and it still doesn't work. We added 10M people in the last couple decades but no more water resevoirs.
10M, mainly over densely-populated, metropolitan areas. Where do you expect reservoirs to be built in that case? And to my knowledge, unless we have a dry season, we've never had to worry about water rationing or anything like that. It's not like more people in the population will be unable to have access to these utilities, or is paying an unfair amount for them based on their needs/wants. If it weren't for regulating entities that would most definitely not be the case.Edited by guyladouche - 4/1/11 at 2:27pm