Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
Fair to the paraplegic who uses the internet constantly for voice and video links?
|
My arthritic mother has had a motability car for the last 10 years. Perhaps we should be lobbying Government to make similar provision for those with a disability that increases their need for broadband internet services.
Quote:
|
Fair to the low income earners?
|
Petrol tax is proportionately harsher on lower income earners but that has never stopped successive Governments from using it as a means of trying to control traffic levels. Nevertheless, free or very cheap web access is becoming more and more available through public libraries and the like.
Quote:
|
Fair to those that are 'heavy users' and NOT engaged in illegal activity?
|
Frankly, yes. Heavy users on the same UBR as me make it more likely that when I want to use the net, it will perform poorly. I understand perfectly well that they will also feel the effects of this, but I'm not worried about that - they are the authors of their own misfortune. There is a cost associated with their network-jamming activities, even if that cost is only my time, your time and their time spent waiting. They need to have some visibility of that cost, even if their activities are legitimate. And I am unconvinced that the majority of heavy usage is legitimate in any case.
NTL's business plan was based on being able to load a certain number of people onto the network at a fixed rate per month. That network supports fewer users than expected because a relatively small number of people are using it more than anticipated. NTL therefore has less revenue and less cash for investment in the infrastructure. The only solution for this is either cap the heavy users, allowing more users to be loaded onto the network, increasing the number of monthly subscriptions and therefore the amount of cash available for investment, or make the heavy users pay more. I would prefer neither, but if pushed, the latter.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The online economy, as far as I am aware, generates a lot of cash from online sales. Visiting a web site to buy online requires very little bandwidth, so increasing charges for heavy users would not affect this. Could you post an example of how increasing the cost of heavy bandwidth usage among
domestic users would adversely impact the economy?[/quote]
Quote:
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
|
And you are perfectly entitled to it. As I have said, however, I think there are factors other than cost of provision that can legitimately affect the price of a product.
Begging your pardon, now I'm writing essays too ...
