Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan
I am finding it a bit difficult to get too worked up about this issue. I should pay for what I use. That makes sense to me. I can see people getting upset about the reversal or how it was communicated. It also seems to me that you can go gonzo for two months, take a month to watch what you downloaded, then go gonzo again. Hard to argue with that. The one thing I do agree with is it is not right we are unable to monitor our own usage. That should have come first.
Also, I assume the infrastructure was built by private companies, should they not get to determine how they get paid for it? (if the gov't originally built it and sold it to the ISPs then that seems to be the same thing) Seems pretty fair to me. If we want universal access then let the government build and run the lines and we all pay through taxes.
|
Pay for what you use. Sounds great.
Question:
Would you support paying your electricity utility a flat fee of $100 a month regardless of how much you use and then if you use over a certain amount you then pay an arbitrary sum of 60 cents a kWh?
Because that's what's going on here.
You aren't paying for what you use at all. You're paying an arbitrary flat fee with no disclosure on what the fixed amortized costs are and then you're paying an overage fee that is not justified based on either marginal or average costs.
You're basically getting reamed because a monopoly is doing it and there's no regulator out there protecting them from the monopoly.