Re: Net Neutrality and Your Internet Bill
"nicholas a. evans" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: > So if I came along and offered an unlimited water service, would that be better? > Or an unlimited electricity solution? If you could do so at a competitive price, not be lying when you say "unlimited", and stay profitable, then by all means go ahead. I'd also like unlimited gasoline for my car at a reasonable price too, while you're at it. I've got some road trips planned for next year. > Why should they be different? Why shouldn’t they? What is wrong with more for > less? I am afraid I don’t get your question. More for less? You didn't say you wanted more for less. You said you wanted "unlimited" (which doesn't exist except as a marketing lie) for... well, your price was unspecified. My claim is that more ubiquitous metered pricing would give most people more for less. When Verizon Wireless switched away from "unlimited" cell data to a more metered approach, most customers would pay less. > Metered services seem fair but they are also limiting in a sense, and those who > operate them are highly invested in making sure no one can bypass them. Oh? I've never had that problem with the gas stations. If I don't like the price at the one, I go across the street to the other. The problem is not the meter, the problem is the lack of obtainable competition. -- Nick -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot