3 ms·

"How they can justify $50 for that" They don't need to justify. The only reason they would even think about this is if the detriment didn't outweigh the benefi

by larrys 13y ago

"How they can justify $50 for that" They don't need to justify. The only reason they would even think about this is if the detriment didn't outweigh the benefit. If perhaps x% of people think that it's a ripoff and 90% don't or don't even know or think everything is a ripoff anyway then why not get the extra revenue? My guess is that the amount of people that even have any understanding of what is involved is quite small. "But actually, the $110/mo charge covers that, and always has." What do you mean "and always has"? Are you saying because they consistently turn a profit then you have decided they have enough to cover their fixed expenses and they shouldn't try to add to the bottom line? Not to mention that off the top with a billion dollar corporation you really don't know what is going on there anyway. "Third is because the company is making plenty of profit, but the parent company wants more, so they're pushing it to do stupid stuff like this" In a capitalist system there is really no such thing as "plenty of profit". The mere fact that you feel like it's up to you (or anyone else who makes comments) to decide "ok that's enough" really does not make any sense. I mean you've never seen profitable companies go out of business or bankrupt that at any point in time someone would have said "they make plenty of profit". (We can start with General Motors, Chrysler etc.) "A large percentage of employees are looking for work elsewhere, it's just unfortunate there are not many options" I'm unclear what the amount of employees looking for work matters with respect to what they charge. Are you implying that things like this make employees want to leave? I somehow doubt that.

defen 13y ago
> In a capitalist system there is really no such thing as "plenty of profit" The telecommunications industry in the U.S. is anything but capitalist. Furthermore, people don't really have a choice regarding their internet service, so ripping them off for another $50 is pretty low.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
You are the reason I look forward to municipal fiber. Hello utility regulation.
mrxd 13y ago
> The mere fact that you feel like it's up to you (or anyone else who makes comments) to decide "ok that's enough" really does not make any sense. Actually it does. Consumers are allowed to make decisions about purchases on any grounds they choose, including whether they feel that a company is taking too much profit, or that the company is violating some ethical standard. Consumers are also free to call for boycotts or otherwise persuade others to not purchase products. If we think that a company should be transparent and justify their pricing so that it's proportional to costs, then that's what we think. If we think that companies shouldn't exploit the technical ignorance of consumers, then that's what we think. In a capitalist system, we're free to debate these questions, make purchasing decisions based on them and start competing companies to serve dissatisfied consumers. If we have more technical knowledge, preventing non-technical consumers from being exploited by sharing information with them is an ethical good. Most advocates of free markets argue that these capacities make the system work. The only thing that wouldn't be permitted in a pure capitalist system is if these ethical claims translated into a demand for government intervention, which no one has done so far. Even so, it's easy to argue that these arbitrary fees are a market failure caused by information asymmetry between Comcast and consumers and could require government intervention. The issue is not the price. It's that Comcast is misrepresenting the charge as technically necessary, which could be seen as discouraging consumers from evaluating competitors (assuming they exist) by implying that there are technical rather than business decisions behind the charge.
- larrys 13y ago
  All of what you are saying I agree with. I guess it just bothers me that the crowd of people who try and influence others (and yes you are correct that this is fully their right) either have no skin in the game (in other words they only have one interest in mind) and additionally may not really fully understand how business operates. I guess I just react very viscerally to things being worded "ripoff" because it's so easy for people to throw that around and pass judgement. To me "ripoff" means take advantage and you could argue that in business there is a fine line between what is acceptable in terms of "taking advantage" and what is not. And you know what each of us has a different line. (It's just like religion and cheating on your taxes. Anyone who does more is "really religious" anyone who steals more is "a big crook"). Everyone draws the line at a different place. There are many people who believe that YC takes advantage of young people. You know all those "should I go to Harvard or to YC" would be seen by many people as totally taking advantage of someone (and may or may not be depending on the circumstances of the particular individual and what the particular person with the opinion really knows about YC).

by larrys 13y ago

defen 13y ago

> In a capitalist system there is really no such thing as "plenty of profit" The telecommunications industry in the U.S. is anything but capitalist. Furthermore, people don't really have a choice regarding their internet service, so ripping them off for another $50 is pretty low.

toomuchtodo 13y ago

You are the reason I look forward to municipal fiber. Hello utility regulation.

mrxd 13y ago

> The mere fact that you feel like it's up to you (or anyone else who makes comments) to decide "ok that's enough" really does not make any sense. Actually it does. Consumers are allowed to make decisions about purchases on any grounds they choose, including whether they feel that a company is taking too much profit, or that the company is violating some ethical standard. Consumers are also free to call for boycotts or otherwise persuade others to not purchase products. If we think that a company should be transparent and justify their pricing so that it's proportional to costs, then that's what we think. If we think that companies shouldn't exploit the technical ignorance of consumers, then that's what we think. In a capitalist system, we're free to debate these questions, make purchasing decisions based on them and start competing companies to serve dissatisfied consumers. If we have more technical knowledge, preventing non-technical consumers from being exploited by sharing information with them is an ethical good. Most advocates of free markets argue that these capacities make the system work. The only thing that wouldn't be permitted in a pure capitalist system is if these ethical claims translated into a demand for government intervention, which no one has done so far. Even so, it's easy to argue that these arbitrary fees are a market failure caused by information asymmetry between Comcast and consumers and could require government intervention. The issue is not the price. It's that Comcast is misrepresenting the charge as technically necessary, which could be seen as discouraging consumers from evaluating competitors (assuming they exist) by implying that there are technical rather than business decisions behind the charge.

larrys 13y ago
All of what you are saying I agree with. I guess it just bothers me that the crowd of people who try and influence others (and yes you are correct that this is fully their right) either have no skin in the game (in other words they only have one interest in mind) and additionally may not really fully understand how business operates. I guess I just react very viscerally to things being worded "ripoff" because it's so easy for people to throw that around and pass judgement. To me "ripoff" means take advantage and you could argue that in business there is a fine line between what is acceptable in terms of "taking advantage" and what is not. And you know what each of us has a different line. (It's just like religion and cheating on your taxes. Anyone who does more is "really religious" anyone who steals more is "a big crook"). Everyone draws the line at a different place. There are many people who believe that YC takes advantage of young people. You know all those "should I go to Harvard or to YC" would be seen by many people as totally taking advantage of someone (and may or may not be depending on the circumstances of the particular individual and what the particular person with the opinion really knows about YC).