🚀 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.  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.

> Why should I have to pay a much larger price for my access
> in order to subsidize someone who uses a great deal more
> bandwidth than I do?  I applaud Sympatico for having the
> fair-mindedness to make the heavy users pay their share of
> the bill (not really though, see A. Smith on the butcher
> and the baker).

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.

>
> That having been said, of course, I don't know to what
> extent the proposed new Sympatico prices actually do end
> up charging people for how much they use (why for example,
> does it kick in only at 5G/month?  I use only .3G/month,
> and I get plenty of use out of the internet.  And $8/G on
> downloads over 5G seems to be quite a bit pricier than
> the cost per G below 5G).  Perhaps they are just hiding an
> attempt to rip people off behind what appears to be a fairer
> way to distribute the costs we must all bear.

It seems to me that, having lured people to an *unlimted access* service, they
have decided that they should try to squeeze more money out of their customers
by altering their unlimited access to a  limited access, and at higher rates.
All this is being done at a time when technology is driving competitors' prices
down and their customer bases are expanding.