3 ms·

Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine No, that's a completely unfair char

Its somewhat like offering the poor special-price moldy bread, deliberately poisoned to make them have to buy your medicine No, that's a completely unfair characterization. There's nothing "poisoned" about the lower level of service being contemplated here, it's just a lot less capable. You seem to be putting yourself into the position of deciding for these hypothetical poor customers that if they can't have the A+ level of service for top dollars, then they shouldn't have anything at all. It's all or nothing. If you think that we should limit things in this way, then let's be up-front about it. Admit from the beginning that the result will be that we're preventing low-cost plans, so the industry will be forbidden from selling plans designed for disadvantaged people.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I didn't make my self clear then. Its absolutely poisoned. They had to go to special trouble to disable browsing anything but the services they wanted you to see. Like putting on blinders. Or to use the food analogy, to destroy the food value of the bread so as to influence your subsequent behavior. The lowest rung, the only rung, on the internet ladder is - a connection. Nothing costs more or less than that. The rest is an attempt to charge rent on property that isn't theirs. To mix the metaphors. They are a carrier; they don't provide web sites and its none of their blessed business which ones you visit using their precious phone.