 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to bmn
Re: to complain does not mean you are right said by bmn:
The old axiom does... "The customer is always right." 
The old axiom is wrong. Only customers who make you money are right. Customers that cost more than what they pay aren't worth anything.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by pnh102:
said by bmn:
The old axiom does... "The customer is always right."
The old axiom is wrong. Only customers who make you money are right. Customers that cost more than what they pay aren't worth anything.
In the broadband world no evidence of that has been presented. There are people who are using more than others, but no more than they are paying for. Reason is simple, and I'd suspect a non-geek such as you could see that, you can use more bandwidth that you are allocated. If you pay for 3Mbps and you use 3Mbps, then the company is loosing no money.
--
root by day... raver by night...
"Let the American[s]... bask in their illusion." - M.S.S. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by bmn:
I'd suspect a non-geek such as you could see that
Me? A non-geek? Please. I have enough computing power in my house to run a small country.
said by bmn:
In the broadband world no evidence of that has been presented. There are people who are using more than others, but no more than they are paying for.
I wasn't being specific to broadband. And I do agree that if a company tells you a service is indeed unlimited (e.g., you pay for a 1500/256 connection and you use 1500/256 like your example) then your provider should not be yelling at you. I was generalizing this to other businesses. Sorry that I was unclear in my previous post.
I suppose a broadband related example of my original premise could be that you have a few broadband customers who are calling tech support at least once per day (esp. for problems unrelated to their connection) and tying up the people in the support end up for 1 hour per call. The cost of paying the techs along with the time taken away from other support calls could actually cost the ISP more money than it charges those customers, so in the end, the ISP would be better off without these customers.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by pnh102:
said by bmn:
I'd suspect a non-geek such as you could see that
Me? A non-geek? Please. I have enough computing power in my house to run a small country.
I make that assumption on previous posts and as a person whose gotten the title ubergeek (I prefer networking guru though) from others.
said by pnh102:
I wasn't being specific to broadband. And I do agree that if a company tells you a service is indeed unlimited (e.g., you pay for a 1500/256 connection and you use 1500/256 like your example) then your provider should not be yelling at you. I was generalizing this to other businesses. Sorry that I was unclear in my previous post.
I suppose a broadband related example of my original premise could be that you have a few broadband customers who are calling tech support at least once per day (esp. for problems unrelated to their connection) and tying up the people in the support end up for 1 hour per call. The cost of paying the techs along with the time taken away from other support calls could actually cost the ISP more money than it charges those customers, so in the end, the ISP would be better off without these customers.
I thought you were referring to bandwidth.
But even in your example the company isn't loosing money. How ? Because that tech support usage from the I-D-10-T users is being subsidized by the ubergeeks and other people who know what's going on. A service company loosing money based on the usage of a few is a myth because there are those who make up for the cost by not using there service fully. Basically, the company doesn't loose money on the tech support junkie, because you and I and the other subscribers pick up that slack when we aren't using tech support. Now, if everyone from AOL switched over to say Cox, and started using tech support like they do on AOL, then the tide has changed because the majority (as they are now) of the users are complete idiots.
--
root by day... raver by night...
"Let the American[s]... bask in their illusion." - M.S.S. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by bmn:
Because that tech support usage from the I-D-10-T users is being subsidized by the ubergeeks and other people who know what's going on.
You're correct in that regard. But from the ISP's perspective, tech support is a money pit. All the money they spend on tech support is written off as a business expense. They want to keep the amount of money they throw at it to a minimum. If one customer's actions is resulting in the ISP throwing more money at the tech support than that customer brings in, then indeed the ISP is losing money because of that customer. If the ISP dumps that customer, it does lose the revenue from that customer but its expenses decrease by more than the amount of revenue lost.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! |
|
