3 ms·

The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watchi

The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watching the Youtube video your friend posted with a Tweet - not possible. This limitation will make such a package unattractive. Another reason for why these offers will fail is status. If you bought such a package, you better not tell your peers, because it lowers your status among them. Well, your peers will know it anyway, because you cannot just open this Youtube video they posted on their Facebook timeline. This is a bigger issue with Sprint's targeted customer: poor people and kids. It would be a good strategy, if Sprint compensates these offerings by also offering an instant access choice. If a customer with a Facebook package opens an external resource, she/he shall see a page where she/he can buy 24h Internet access for less than $2. --- If providers stop offering "undiscriminated" Internet access, others will fill this gap with new "Real Internet Access".

Smudge 12y ago
You're right -- they can't limit this service to ONLY Facebook or Twitter and expect it to succeed. They'd need to give you a big enough slice of the internet that most external links will work. Or, at the very least, they would need to provide a means for gaining access (i.e. watch this ad, or pay for temporary access, or buy this cheap add-on package). My point wasn't that the Internet would suddenly become a set of pre-packaged channels. It's just that, if you leave it up to the average internet subscriber, I can see a future where the desires of many price-conscious consumers ultimately how Internet service gets structured. I suspect my parents, for instance, would be willing to trade reduced Internet access for much lower prices. Sure, plenty of people would still go for the "Real Internet Access" option, but for a ton of consumers the Internet would cease being as open as it is today, and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be totally okay with that, if it meant paying a lot less.

Smudge 12y ago

You're right -- they can't limit this service to ONLY Facebook or Twitter and expect it to succeed. They'd need to give you a big enough slice of the internet that most external links will work. Or, at the very least, they would need to provide a means for gaining access (i.e. watch this ad, or pay for temporary access, or buy this cheap add-on package). My point wasn't that the Internet would suddenly become a set of pre-packaged channels. It's just that, if you leave it up to the average internet subscriber, I can see a future where the desires of many price-conscious consumers ultimately how Internet service gets structured. I suspect my parents, for instance, would be willing to trade reduced Internet access for much lower prices. Sure, plenty of people would still go for the "Real Internet Access" option, but for a ton of consumers the Internet would cease being as open as it is today, and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be totally okay with that, if it meant paying a lot less.