🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:34:14 -0700
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:09:50 -0400, jayjwa
> <jayjwa@vdrl.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in <x7d4lqt381.fsf@vdrl.ath.cx>:
> 
> >John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
> 
> >> The real issue isn't "caps" -- it's the insanity of flat rate
> >> pricing, where normal users wind up subsidizing bandwidth hogs.
> >> It's long since time for metered usage.
> >
> >The first home Internet connections were like that.  I remember years
> >ago when AOL made its big start. The usage was metered and you'd have
> >one eye on the clock, one on what you were doing. Several of my first
> >accounts were like that. You'd get so many "hours" of use, and beyond
> >that, you'd pay through the nose for each minute/hour/unit over
> >time. Flat-rate was when Internet took off. Before that, people used
> >to get pissed at stuff like a 6-line signature because their usage
> >was metered. This was more by connection time and you are talking
> >more about data size, but the idea is the same: some ticker running
> >out on you. Let's move forward, not backwards.
> 
> That makes no sense.  The market only works when price signals are
> related to actual cost, and flat rate pricing is clearly broken.  
> 
> The problem in the past (and with current cellular pricing) is the
> "pay through the nose" if you go over some threshold, which is
> intended to coerce you into a bigger package than you really need.  
> 
> The simple and proper solution is smoothly graduated pricing:
> * Use X bytes, pay Y dollars.
> * Use 2X bytes, pay no more than 2Y dollars, probably less, NOT more.
> Then there can be no real objection to metered pricing, which is how
> we pay for most goods and services.  
> 
> Or do you think there should be a flat monthly rate for gasoline, no
> matter how much you drive?  That might be great for a minority of
> heavy drivers, but grossly unfair to light drivers.
> 
> Flat rate pricing simply makes no sense.
> 
One could make a strong case that the Internet use is more like
television viewing than gasoline burning.  At any rate, this is yet
another argument in which neither side seems to recognize any value to
the opposing argument.  Why are people like that?  Wouldn't it make
much more sense to try to combine the best of each view?

jeff