This would invariably be followed up with a price increase if any meaningful number of customers have months with no use. The company would have to cover the c

This would invariably be followed up with a price increase if any meaningful number of customers have months with no use. The company would have to cover the costs, likely split between some expected decrease in churn and the rest in a price increase. If the service is willing to afford eating that cost today, why wouldn't they do a price decrease across the board? Surely they'd rather help those who most use their service rather than the minority that pays but doesn't use it.