said by fiberguy:you gotta remember though that the majority of people on here do not/have not run their own business so they only look at stuff through a consumer point of view so it's understandable why people are uninformed and have no clue about underlying expenses said by 45612019:
No. They're paid for by having numerous subscribers forking out $60 or more a month for service.
Implementing low bandwidth caps with high overage fees is completely unnecessary to recoup deployment costs. That's what the subscriber fee is for. Vastly marked up bandwidth overage fees are just an opportunity to price gouge the consumer.
Have you ever run a company? .. it sure doesn't sound like it. According to you, the activist however, anything that doesn't fit your agenda by any company is going to be foul.
Towers, power, backhaul, employees, workmans comp, insurance (health and liability) taxes of all sorts, advertising, customer service, installation expenses, maintenance, the data itself, government affairs, the cost of spectrum, fuel, vehicle maintenance, the list goes on.. those are expenses.. and as someone that DOES run a business I can tell you that arguments that people like you make just irritate the hell out of me. You think you have it all figured out.. you think it's all about bandwidth. Oh, and they are allowed to make a profit too.
Now please, go on to tell me how all the stuff I mentioned above has nothing to do with the cost of providing the service, for one reason or another.
I don't know where you people get these figures and formulas you come up with to justify your position, but you're FAR FAR FAR off the mark most of the time.
But yea.. it's all about punitive caps and overages so they can gouge the consumer.