🚀 go-pugleaf

Calvin Ostrum wrote:

> | > You admit they should be able to raise the price to cover
> | > these costs, it seems.  But then you insist that they must
> | > raise the price for everyone, including those who are *not*
> | > imposing very large costs on them.
> |
> | I admitted that the service agreement provides for changing the price for the
> | service.
>
> It also seems to allow for changing pretty much whatever
> they want.  The part you quoted never mentioned any limits
> on what they could change; rather, it seemed to simply give
> one example of something they felt they would be most likely
> to want to change.  Where does it rule out other forms of
> change?  Is there anything in this agreement that protects
> the consumer from anything that Sympatico should wish
> to do?

I posted the pertinent parts of the agreement, and I believe that someone else posted
it in the entirety (or a link to it).  I don't see where it says they can change
whatever they want, as you indicate.  It describes "the service" as unlimited access
to the Internet, and the agreement provides for changes in the agreement, but nt to
change "the service" ... unlimited access.

> | Bear in mind that internet access rates have dropped dramatically
> | over the last decade as advances in technology came along and the number of
> | users grew.
>
> I am not so sure about that.  I have seen a number of cut-rate
> services, but quite a few  basic dialup ones are still around
> $20 a month or so for "unlimited" access.  People seem to be
> subscribing to these services.  Perhaps they have turned out
> to be more trustworthy, or at least seem that way.    $20 a
> month is similar to what I paid for my first commercial ISP in
> 1995 (netcom).  In any case, we are talking about a much higher
> level of technology.  Even when you are charged Sympatico's $8/G
> for download, that is far cheaper than things used to be (you
> would be hard pressed to download a G a month in the old days),
> and of course everything is much much faster too.  So there is
> "internet access" and there is "internet access".

For the first few years that I had an internet account, I was buying blocks of time
or paying monthly rates with limited hours. I was also connect at 14.4. Rates were
always time based and you could go as fast as the equipment allowed without worrying
about the amount of bandwidth. If you went over your time by downloading or uploading
a lot, you paid for the time.  I pay a lot more for "unlimited access" with Sympatico
High Speed edition than I was paying before.


>
> | If you are not using the net much, you can buy more limited plans. Planning to
> | spend more time on the net, I opted for the unlimited access offered by
> | Sympatico. It is still advertising the High Speed Edition as unlimited access.
>
> I don't think so, can I?  If I want high-speed access
> (high-speed for me is  more a matter of quality of net-use than
> quantity) I think I am forced to buy Sympatico's DSL (or some
> other DSL at basically the same rate) or cable.  All of these
> currently offer the same price for those people who use huge
> amounts of bandwidth and those people who use only a small
> amount, which hardly seems fair.

That is the way it was marketed. Be hooked up all the time and have unlimited access.

>
> The ability to buy "more limited plans" is what Sympatico
> is planning to introduce.  I will probably get the plan
> limited to 5G/month for $45.  If you want the 6G/month plan,
> it will cost you $53.  The 7G/month will cost you $61, etc.
> You can get whatever one you want, and switch around
> automatically with no effort.  Sounds not to bad to me.
> Except that perhaps all of them should be cheaper, and there
> should be plans even cheaper than the 5G/month plan
> (but which still offer the same high speed).

So after dial up connections getting cheaper and cheaper per hour,  Bell's
technological devolution seems to require them to increase their unit charges.

> |