Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: They can shove their fees said by fAcEtIOUs:Most banks I've seen charge no fees at all to pay bills thru their online systems. I think, that's why Qwest wanted to charge people who pay using methods that cost Qwest more money to process the payment. ACH bill pay doesn't cost Qwest nor the customer anything. It's like writing an electronic check.
It won't surprise me if someday banks try to monetize ACH bill pay. But, for now it seems like they have an incentive to get everyone to use it instead of paper checks (lower cost to the bank). And, to get everyone to use it instead of credit cards so they have a user base to compete against credit-card companies (and presumably monetize it eventually).
It doesn't seem like a big consumer "win" to force Qwest to distribute higher-cost payment processing to everyone who doesn't contribute to those higher costs.
Mark |
|
1 edit | Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Karl Bode:Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. C'mon, Karl. The "they wouldn't pass the savings on anyway" line is becoming circular. You use it for *everything*.
The same could be said that, by not allowing Qwest to recover costs more specifically from those who incur them, Qwest will just use it as an excuse to raise rates sooner (being the evil corporation just looking for an excuse to line its own pockets).
Or, we should just get rid of tiers? We know ISPs like Qwest won't really pass on the savings of lower-tier users to those users. So, they might as well be charged the same price as higher-tier users?
Using telephone operators to take payment information costs more. So does processing Visa payments.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by Karl Bode:Feh. They're paying higher costs no matter what. Executives will simply find another way. Pretending they'd save money by inferring they should support higher costs for others is silly. C'mon, Karl. The "they wouldn't pass the savings on anyway" line is becoming circular. You use it for *everything*. The same could be said that, by not allowing Qwest to recover costs more specifically from those who incur them, Qwest will just use it as an excuse to raise rates sooner (being the evil corporation just looking for an excuse to line its own pockets). Or, we should just get rid of tiers? We know ISPs like Qwest won't really pass on the savings of lower-tier users to those users. So, they might as well be charged the same price as higher-tier users? Using telephone operators to take payment information costs more. So does processing Visa payments. Mark Actually Mark free.fr in France has one tier, one price, and provides everyone with the best service they can afford while guaranteeing its owner a certain margin. They charge $40/month for a triple play of voice, internet, and TV and the owner takes $10/month margins on the service, using the rest of the money to upgrade speeds, build FTTH to major metropolises, and now to move into the wireless service business. So yes, one tier does make sense, especially considering the cost of provisioning 1.5 mbit/s versus 3mbit/s to a customer is virtually the same. |
|
