Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
1 edit | Australia? Is there someone with a good reference to the Australia experience?
In general, I believe that flat-rate takes the guessing out of how much the total bill will be, but that measured-rate can be very effective IF AND ONLY IF THE COSTS ARE REASONABLE, e.g., and almost always based strong upon: within range of the actual costs (including REASONABLE profit levels as a less-than-triple-digit PERCENT of the per-bit true costs). In fact, I think such reasonably-costed measured rate services would be beneficial to many that want to pay reasonable rates and not be either burdoned nor burdoning, which each causes lopsided problems.
I hate being made to feel like a criminal just because no one is offering reasonable-cost-based usage-based charging, where they don't do any resource shifting (i.e., subsidize grandma, billy boy, and Ms. Bell-employee-as-welfare, by gouging me for my "extra" (i.e., normal per-use) usage).
So, what I'd look at for the Australia example is the tell-tale sign that the site's editor didn't mention Australia over-charged, which means it was no test at all.
Too many MBAs consider market bearance to be the only system, and the only approach to that system to start at infinity and go down. Often doing otherwise is considered revolutionary and cherished (e.g., Walmart); why not just consider it as a decent business model to begin with, and not see it as a trailer-trashing of the market, and therefore be able to offer at least middle-class level of services with such reasonable pricing models? The more middle-range customers you get, the more middle-range charges will cause aggregate decent incomes for your company, long term, rather than arm-injection-dope for Wall Street that never lasts long enough to do anything but prepare our country for plunder by the various -isms, -ists, -ims, -cies, and -ans. |
