🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CF80BFB.22DD63E9@sympatico.ca...
> Marko Jotic wrote:
>
> > > Say What You Want - Debate What You Want.
> > > Fact Is UNLIMITED is UNLIMITED Period.
> > You obviously cannot read the agreement in question
>
> I read the agreement. It is unlimited access. The terms that can be
changed
> for that service is the pricing.
>
> > > Other Services Are Entering The Market. Even If Not
> > > All Are Cheaper - At Least They Are Honest.
> > And You think (lol) they can afford to give you totally unlimited
> > service forever without somebody paying for it
>
> They offered *unlimited access to the Internet* at a set price. One would
> hope that a company as big and as old as Bell would be able to calculate a
> price that would give them a decent price.

Big companies make mistakes and miscalculations all the time.  Sometimes the
bigger they are, the more of a blunder it is.  Example:  New Coke.

> The reason stated for the new
> limits on bandwidth is that a small number of users are causing the system
> to slow down.  Oddly, they have continued to offer this service for some
> time and are continuing to offer unlimited access. It doesn't take a
rocket
> scientist to figure out that if the system is clogging up now, it will
slow
> down even more with more users being signed up.
>

Perhaps it does, however, take a shrewd businessperson to leak information
of some doom that may come to scare away those who are using the system more
than expected.  I'm not saying that's what they're doing, but it's possible.

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're in
need of money, keep selling.  By the simple fact that this thread exists,
many of the "too" heavy users won't be the ones signing up.

Furthermore, it was in one of my intro econ courses where it was explained
to me how it can be better [financially] to operate at a loss than to shut
down the factory.  Now, I'm rather sure that the company in question thought
long and hard about the best way to continue to operate until any future
changes took place.  Even business majors take intro econ courses.

Let's be honest - they're trying to make a profit.  They are charging you
"too" much already [Marxian].

My advice to any existing customers - if you're worried, monitor your own
usage for a few months.  If you're nowhere near the potential limits you
should keep the service.  If you're near them, well then you've got to make
a little judgement call.  If you're already over them, you need to realize
that you are one of the people that are getting a service for less than it's
worth.  Enjoy the fact that you've had it good for a while, and seriously
consider getting a different service that more suits your usage habits.

Of course, I love getting more than what I've paid for, too.  In fact, I
consider that I AM getting that with my current service.  Should things
change with my provider, I will probably have to switch to one that I [from
the preventative research I've done] charges me lots more, and gives me
somewhat less.  YMMV.

>
> > > Clients Walking Into my Store, Are Doing The Same -
> > > And, That's Even Without My Advice.
> > Your insolence and advice has probably turned off thousand of potential
> > customers
>
> Hopefully, his comments will have alerted enough of Bell's potential
> customers so that they can look at other providers. If enough people opt
> not to go with Sympatico, it might relieve the strain on the system so
they
> do not have to raise our rates.
>
>

I hope so, too.  I think everyone should evaluate all the options and choose
what is best for them.

,