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.
