Sometimes the smaller package of something will be on sale while the larger one is not and the smaller package winds up costing less per oz with the sale price so I buy two of the smaller instead of one of the larger.
Of course. I just yesterday did that on a couple jars of peanut butter. In the example I used DSL was even more expensive "per ounce" on their promo than is Charter on their new standard pricing.
Comes down to price vs. cost. I understand that price may be the limiting factor in some cases, but cost is a consideration.
Part of the reason why Charter and other companies initially offered a lite service is that they realized that there is a fairly large market for modest inexpensive internet service, and although the profit per sub they would make would be low, they would still make something and also serve the community as well. The subscriber was paying his way of course, but only received the service level he was actually paying for. A great concept.
Here is a contrasting viewpoint from the CEO of a local DSL service provider which does not tier their native service ("Fusion"):
"The working poor that work for a "hourly wage" have a variable income because each pay check can differ due to missed days, being late, overextended lunches."
I am referring to that statement. Many (not all) of these people choose to screw off in school or dropped out. There are a lot of higher paying jobs that do not require college degrees but the do require a high school education.
In this economy, many of the "working poor" don't have fixed hours, beyond about 20-30 per week, because the employer saves a bundle in HR expenses per "part time" employee.
All my ketchup gets used so why would I pay more per serving by buying it in small bottles, so to speak?
It may not matter to you and it may not be the point if you can't afford the big bottle, but to say it's pointless is untrue.
That is true for merchandise sold in incremental quantities. May I remind you that Internet is not sold that way? It does not matter if I use 10GB per month, or 100GB per month. It does not matter if my tier is 3Mbs or 30Mbs. My fee is a fixed amount per month, and the data used does not affect my bill. Until "Cap-and-overage" becomes the norm, anyway.
Therefore, since there is currently no model for "bulk data" for consumer Internet, comparison to products amenable to bulk sales is pointless.
I've never understood why ISP's don't just run every connection "wide open" and just use some load balancing / bandwidth management tools.
While this would be great on cable, DSL it would not be quite as fair for everyone as someone getting 768kbps at the far end of the coverage area would be paying the same price as someone getting 6mbps near the switch.
Yet the Sonic.net, LLC CEO, Dane Jasper, claims that speed is "costless", while infrastructure costs are the same to each premises passed. So my mother pays $19.98 per month for 4.8Mbs Internet and I pay $19.98 per month for 15Mbs Internet.
I suspect the ISPs set our expectations by creating tiered services; with the tiers geared for greater profit at higher speeds.
Anybody who thinks the prices of all services and products sold in this country reflect some semblance of the actual cost need to re-examine their assumptions.
I think we need caps on profit margins but that's a discussion for a political thread.
Just today I saw a item that costs less than $50 to make being sold for $750 just because of a "name" on it.
Yep. I became aware in the late 90s. I saw the markups on name brands of distilled spirits; some as much as 150%! And there was no cost justification for subtitled anime VHS tapes to cost $6 more than the English voice overdubs, considering that the voice actors represented an extra cost over translators and editors used in both.
It's really, really simple without a bunch more regulations and mandating. If you don't like the price don't buy the product. It takes care of itself that way.
The 12 oz is 16.5 cents per oz and the 32 oz is 10.9 cents per oz.
Save money by buying in bulk.
I'm always using the calculator in my phone to save money when grocery shopping. Sometimes the smaller package of something will be on sale while the larger one is not and the smaller package winds up costing less per oz with the sale price so I buy two of the smaller instead of one of the larger.
But I can't use up 32 oz before it goes rancid. All I am able to use is 12 oz. I throw out 20 oz of bulk priced rancid ketchup. That means I paid $3.49 for 12 oz of ketchup. If I'm not going to use all that ketchup (or bandwidth) buying the 12 oz bottle takes less money out of my wallet. Ketchup isn't a good example. Substitute something more perishable.
I think we need caps on profit margins but that's a discussion for a political thread.
Just today I saw a item that costs less than $50 to make being sold for $750 just because of a "name" on it.
Does that "make" cost take into account R&D, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, retail costs, demand, etc. or is it just straight component cost?
A "Name" can be a valuable asset that can take years for a company or product to develop. Trouble free operation, good return policy, ease of use, etc are all associated with particular brands or names that can make them more valuable.
But I can't use up 32 oz before it goes rancid. All I am able to use is 12 oz. I throw out 20 oz of bulk priced rancid ketchup. That means I paid $3.49 for 12 oz of ketchup. If I'm not going to use all that ketchup (or bandwidth) buying the 12 oz bottle takes less money out of my wallet. Ketchup isn't a good example. Substitute something more perishable.
Yep. Exactly.
Notice how the faulty "talking point" the PR people are desperate to use doesn't make logical sense, IF you are a typical consumer living in the "real economy". But see the top execs at most companies do not and have NO clue about family budgets. Their resources are limitless. MBAs & brass tack co. are completely out of touch.
Does that "make" cost take into account R&D, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, retail costs, demand, etc. or is it just straight component cost?
Marketing drives price, not cost. If Vachel Carling can convince the people that they must have a Rubilator, despite that it will cost them $1,500, he will get very rich on the $1.50 worth of parts, and $15 of R&D which went into creating his Rubilator.
A "Name" can be a valuable asset that can take years for a company or product to develop. Trouble free operation, good return policy, ease of use, etc are all associated with particular brands or names that can make them more valuable.
Or you could just pay a famous person a wad of money to slap their name on your otherwise pedestrian product.
So what if someone wants to pay $1500 for the product that costs only $1.50 to make? What business is that of yours?
It's not up to you how other people spend their money. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.
Sounding just a LITTLE defensive here, guess other posters are hitting a nerve. It's their right on this board to post opinions whether you personally like them or not. Don't get upset, it's something you agreed to when you signed up here on BBR. LOL If you don't like that fact you can stop subscribing to the forums.
I tried composing a reply; twice in the editor, and once as a mental exercise while the downtown San José, California nightlife. I can't do it without discussing corporatism, and its basic inhumane impact on our society. Suffice it to say, when marketing drives demand, people will let the electric bill slide for the sake of a $750 pair of sneakers.
Someone buys a pair of shoes instead of paying the light bill.
I don't doubt for a minute scenarios similar to that play out many times every day, but the company's fault for personal irresponsibility? Surely you jest?
You had me there for a minute until I realized you were just playing it. LOL, good one.
But I can't use up 32 oz before it goes rancid. All I am able to use is 12 oz. I throw out 20 oz of bulk priced rancid ketchup. That means I paid $3.49 for 12 oz of ketchup. If I'm not going to use all that ketchup (or bandwidth) buying the 12 oz bottle takes less money out of my wallet. Ketchup isn't a good example. Substitute something more perishable.
Yep. Exactly.
Notice how the faulty "talking point" the PR people are desperate to use doesn't make logical sense, IF you are a typical consumer living in the "real economy". But see the top execs at most companies do not and have NO clue about family budgets. Their resources are limitless. MBAs & brass tack co. are completely out of touch.
"Their resources are limitless. MBAs & brass tack co. are completely out of touch."
Those last 2 lines sounds just like that "other" pickel who's running for President!!
I try to covince my wife all the time about that ketchup scenario with the stuff she buys!
You had me there for a minute until I realized you were just playing it. LOL, good one.
Corporations have legal equivalence to people, now; but most have the moral equivalence to sociopaths. It irks me that I have to compete with AT&T for the attention of my elected representatives.
I once worked for a company whose founders created a humane workplace; and watched their successors turn it into a sweatshop.
The reason AT&T wants out of the wire-line business is because it is still regulated; a holdover from the days of "public regulated Monopoly". It isn't that wire-line is unprofitable, only that the level of profit does not allow for the accumulation of capital. And a common mistake WRT "capitalism" is that it is about the accumulation of capital. But that is really "corporatism". Capitalism is the use of capital to create an economy, which is diametrically opposed to capital accumulation.
I've been holding back for fear of moderation, but what the Hell; are the mods going to flay me? In Star Trek, the Next Generation, an alien race called, "Ferengi" was introduced. Intended to be the "Evil Empire" of TNG, they turned into comic relief. Their "Rules of Acquisition" aren't so comical as applied by the corporatists of the real, here-and-now world: AT&T, Charter, Sony Entertainment, Microsoft, etc., etc., etc.
It might make for an interesting read if you do go on, but it will not change my opinion about -
1. Business charging what the market will bear if they so choose, without fear of being manipulated by non-market forces. 2. Individual/personal responsibility to manage your finances appropriately. 3. Don't buy it if you think it's a ripoff (refer to #1 & 2).
It might make for an interesting read if you do go on, but it will not change my opinion about -
1. Business charging what the market will bear if they so choose, without fear of being manipulated by non-market forces.
Why the ILECS want to get out of the wireline business; PUC regulations interfere with charging "what the market will bear".
2. Individual/personal responsibility to manage your finances appropriately.
Why corporations use marketing; social manipulation to convince people that they must have their Rubilator, whether they need it, or not.
3. Don't buy it if you think it's a ripoff (refer to #1 & 2).
If it wasn't for Sonic.net, LLC, I would seriously rethink the "need" for fast Internet. The most important things I have done on the Internet could have been done using a $9.00 dial-up connection. As it is, the MPAA/RIAA members have been getting much less from me (near zero) than in the past. I am not inclined to buy another game console; and it was only a show tie-in which led me to buy the Sony Playstation 2.
But there are still questions ... Am I my brother's keeper? Most people recognize certain responsibilities to other persons; but corporations, which won legal recognition as persons, don't recognize their responsibilities as persons in the human community.
I am not a communist, honest; but neither am I a corporatist.
I think your responsibility is to help a person bleeding in the street, or perhaps to donate to the hungry or that sort of thing.
I don't think it's your place, in fact considerably overstepping your bounds, to suggest that you know what's best for me...i.e. try to "protect" me from buying a bottle of expensive booze or whatever.
I don't think it's your place, in fact considerably overstepping your bounds, to suggest that you know what's best for me...i.e. try to "protect" me from buying a bottle of expensive booze or whatever.
Way far from my concern. But there is still the matter of whether Internet service should have a "lifeline" rate. And the matter of when does profit become unconscionable. Internet service is not in the same category as booze.
I think your responsibility is to help a person bleeding in the street, or perhaps to donate to the hungry or that sort of thing.
I don't think it's your place, in fact considerably overstepping your bounds, to suggest that you know what's best for me...i.e. try to "protect" me from buying a bottle of expensive booze or whatever.
Touche!
Yet you have no issue "telling" other customers how they should not push for cheaper broadband prices and lower speed services to meet THEIR needs. It makes you sound like the proverbial hypocrite.
After all.... How dare that puny customer having the nerve to tell the brass tacks at the corporate borg monopolistic utility what they want in terms of services and price!!. LOL
You leave me no choice but to give you an "F" in reading comprehension.
Say's the PR guy that tries to convince the consumer that he is "UNreasonable" to push providers for lower speed/ lower priced tiers of service to meet his needs.
You leave me no choice but to recommend that your employers terminate your services because of how completely UNconvincing you are. LOL
It's their right on this board to post opinions whether you personally like them or not. Don't get upset, it's something you agreed to when you signed up here on BBR. LOL
