dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
231
share rss forum feed


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

And this is different than McDonald's how?

price a Big Mac, fries and a drink individually then price a value meal. A Big Mac by itself isn't much cheaper than just getting the value meal.


tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

said by 88615298:

price a Big Mac, fries and a drink individually then price a value meal. A Big Mac by itself isn't much cheaper than just getting the value meal.

first of all, no company makes public their actual costs.. as it is a trade secret.. whether it be McDonalds, Apple or Verizon.

at least with fast food places have "a-la carte value" menus (usually no more than $1.49).. there is very little of value when 15/5 megabits is being sold for $70 a month. that's like charging $2.99 for the big mac and $2.75 for the ordinary hamburger with 1/3rd the meat, fixins and everything else that makes it a value. Actual price range it SHOULD be.. $.79 - $1.29/// 15/5? no more than $39.99 these days.. and that's overly generous.

btw, if you want to live a long life.. eat as litte of the fast food stuff as you can.. you'd be better off licking the poles of a subway car at the end of the day compared with what the unskilled minimum wage labor does with your food before you get it.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to 88615298

"It's no big deal because McDonald's does it too" is not really a great justification for business behavior.

There is a difference between giving a discount for multiple items and deliberately pricing single items so high that people buy the package instead.

[edit]
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that one gives a discount for multiple items and the other prices single items too high... I think they both price single items too high. What I am saying is that they are not giving anyone a 'discount'.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by CXM_Splicer:

"It's no big deal because McDonald's does it too" is not really a great justification for business behavior.

It's not justifying it. It's merely pointing out there isn't this huge outrage and "let's sue and let's get the government involved" mantra toward McDonald's. All I ask for is CONSISTANCY and no HYPOCRISY.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

I think the outrage is because people consider broadband service a necessary utility that should be regulated. McDonald's certainly is not necessary... and there are many more real options for food then there are for broadband. The options for broadband are not real options since 'they all do it'.

I agree with you on the consistency point though and would advocate stronger consumer protection laws in general.


GTFan

join:2004-12-03
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

price a Big Mac, fries and a drink individually then price a value meal. A Big Mac by itself isn't much cheaper than just getting the value meal.

Um, maybe because in my area if I want true HSI I get a choice of Comcast, and uh, Comcast?

That's what is different than McDonald's, there is little to no competition. But it's all good as long as you can be an FCC commish and then leave to be head of the NCTA, or a corporate shill for Comcast.

Rrascal

join:2012-12-03
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

It's merely pointing out there isn't this huge outrage and "let's sue and let's get the government involved" mantra toward McDonald's. All I ask for is CONSISTANCY and no HYPOCRISY.

You are confused. No one is showing any hypocrisy. Your metaphor doesn't fit in a multitude of ways.
a) you imply that buying a coke in a McDonalds is at or near the same price as a burger, coke, fries meal combination. At my mcdonalds it is 1/4 the price of the combo.
b) broadband regulation is something routinely discussed in political discourse. While not strictly a utility in all aspects, it is effectively a monopoly or duopoly in many areas. It is absolutely valid to discuss or advocate getting the government involved.

It is your position that is hypocritical and inconsistent: These providers lobby the federal state and local in the billions to obtain government involvement laws and rulings in their favor (often creating anti competitive atmospheres) , yet your contention seems to be it is ok for the providers to lobby but not the customers???