Cheaper doesn't always mean better -

Author	All Replies
jcremin join:2009-12-22 Siren, WI kudos:2	Cheaper doesn't always mean better Oh Karl... You amuse me with your stories about how every company that charges more than someone else for a service is evil or ignorant. And before one of the name-calling idiots on this site says it, I'm not a shill... I watch most of the big corporations stuff their CEO's pockets with tons of cash. I don't like it, but it is my choice whether or not to do business with them. If there is a cheaper alternative available, I might switch to that company... BUT, I won't do it at the cost of quality if quality is important to me. Cheaper doesn't always mean better. I run a small WISP. My service is usually slightly more expensive than someone like CenturyLink, but I am also focused on consistent speeds and quality local technical support. I COULD offer cheaper service, but then I'd be outsourcing support to an Indian call center, using crappy equipment, and my quality of service would go down the drain. This would create the downward spiral of losing many customers to a higher-quality ISP, and either putting me out of business, or keeping my capacity to re-invest too low to keep up. Like one of the posters above mentioned, Verizon may be one of the highest priced carriers in the US, but they also invest much better than any of the other carriers. I like T-mobile, and have chosen to stay with them for many years, but they have severely limited their capacity to invest in their network, and it is starting to show. On the flip side, they do provide a better value for me than Verizon so I will stick with them for now. But if things don't start getting better soon, you'll eventually fine me paying more to another carrier for better reliability/speeds/service/etc. Bring on the name-calling, from the entitlists/whiners... I can handle it.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-01-23 12:03:24 ·
The Limit Premium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2	I really don't see where Karl is calling said company evil. I don't think he is implying it either. Sure, there will always be bias, but the article uses factual evidence, including quoted material. I don't think you are a shill, maybe a little confused on the reporting of the story. I would pay more if the quality was better, no doubt about it, but like I was telling TK, it's not about "coverage reputation", but more about real value. The definition of real value in this case, is a price that I can live with and excellent coverage. I realize that I may have to pay more, and even though I wish I could see where all the money was going, I will never be able to figure that out unless I had access to company documents, which I don't. I understand where you are coming from, but Karl doesn't usually diss a company unless the company does something stupid and THEN tries to cover up said stupid action. You have to remember what Karl reports on as well. -- Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda
	to forum · permalink · 2012-01-23 13:49:25 ·
sonicmerlin join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH kudos:1	reply to jcremin Oh shutup. you have no idea how much garbage free went through to get their network set up. The incumbents used every dirty tactic in the book to at first try to prevent free from bidding for spectrum, then to sue them for completely bogus reasons. they even had president sarkozy on their side, but the prime minister stepped in to force sarkozy to let free to compete. the minister was influences by national popular opinion.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-01-23 15:01:33 ·
jcremin join:2009-12-22 Siren, WI kudos:2	reply to The Limit Ok, saying he is calling them evil might be a bit of an exaggeration, but he definitely tries to paint them as being stupid. said by Karl0: The initial response by competitors is somewhat amusing with incumbent operator France Telecom apparently deciding that the right reaction to the shake up of France's stale wireless sector is to pretend it isn't happening: Or being an abusive monopoly: said by Karl0: And by "innovation," they apparently mean not being innovative when it comes to service price tags, something made possible by the previous lack of real competition. The quoted material (summarized) basically says that if they were to match the lower price, they would be reducing investment. Now I agree, by failing to be competitive, they'll lose customers to those who want the cheapest option, but there is a healthy balance between "cheap crap" and "overpriced rip-off". Karl seems to diss anyone who refuses to sell any service at the "cheap crap" price. My opinion is that I do think Karl is twisting the words around to make them look ignorant or evil. To me, good reporting has personality, but focuses on facts. Karl's writing is usually heavy on the bias, and light on the facts.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-01-23 16:07:45 ·
jcremin join:2009-12-22 Siren, WI kudos:2	reply to sonicmerlin said by sonicmerlin: Oh shutup. Whine whine whine... Somehow I expected you'd be one of the people replying to my post because I didn't take Karl's word as the word of my god. Sigh. Face it, I have just as much right to disagree with Karl as you do to agree with him. I'm just getting tired of people like you who are unable to have a debate and typically turn right to the name calling. If Karl's post had been about how FT went out of their way to prevent competition, and was slamming them about that, then I'd have no problem with it. But it wasn't, and instead he made up his own "facts" about why they weren't lowering their price to match.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-01-23 16:13:45 ·

France Telecom Refuses to Compete on Price > Cheaper doesn't always mean better

Cheaper doesn't always mean better