Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
but in my view a pricing structure that makes their activities less attractive to them is also a fair and reasonable means of dealing with the problem. You and I would both prefer it if this was not so, but such is human nature.
|
Fair to the paraplegic who uses the internet constantly for voice and video links? Fair to the low income earners ? Fair to those that are 'heavy users' and NOT engaged in illegal activity?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
Regardless of whether it is cost of provision or cost to customer that is fixed (and I do appreciate the difference), what I am reluctantly advocating is a pricing structure designed to manage usage of the network, not a pricing structure designed to reflect actual costs, whatever those costs may be. As I said in my previous post, this country's tax regime is an example of how pricing can be used to encourage or discourage certain behaviour. I don't like it, but I see no effective alternative. The Law never dealt effectively with widespread copyright infringement pre- the digital age; I see no reason why it should work now, without help.
|
As far as I am concerned the Internet is a vital utility. It is essential to the future health of UK PLC. To price such a 'service of general ecconomic interest' on a what the market will bear basis and not a cost + basis, espcially when it is also a natural monoploy/duopoly would be nothing short of madness. Luckily the government and the EU seem to feel the same.
If the cost of provision was incremantal on usage then customer pricing on such a basis would be fair right an proper. If it is a fixed cost then the customer / user / citizen should have every expectation of being able to accrue the benefits of this (within the law).
Thats my view anyway