reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Since your URL failed to actually link to the word shill, I must assume you also failed to read and understand the definition, so I offer 2 sources
First, I would recommend you look up what a shill is before you continue to attempt to say you are not one. »www.dictionary.com should help you.
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
shill (plural shills)
1.A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial. [quotations ¥]
2.An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game. [quotations ¥]
I have no interest or benefit in you being a comcast customer or not.
said by Skippy25: I was of course answering YOUR suggestion that the proposed tiers would be OVERCHARGING normal users.
Second, so you are against the petty greediness of "someone else should pay" yet you are OK with it when it benefits you?
At the $0.25 per GB flat rate at 250GB user would pay $62.50 the highest regular stand alone HSI price I have ever seen listed, but it seemed a reasonable comparison, The reason it would work well for me and millions of others is the most I have ever used is 159GB, so MY bill would only be $39.75.
However, that would REQUIRE those in overage catagories to pay many thousands of times the proposed fees to reach the same total revenue, a highly unlikely event.
The current base works for me and apparently is one model ComCast is choosing to explore.
said by Skippy25: The once again YOU guessed WRONG.
I guess by your statement then you would agree they should be regulated like a utility with a connection fee and all GB's billed at an appropriate amount determined by experts and not boardrooms. I mean that is probably the most accurate way to make sure none of us are riding the backs of others, not even the executives right? While we are at it, lets not allow any ISP to install/upgrade any lines without forcing that customer to pay the full price of such? Allowing that cost to be absorbed by many would only encourage leeching.
While at some point down the road (years away IMHO) broadband may reach utility status, it currently is a service provided by MOSTLY privately own companies over privately owned networks and in the case of cable Privately(via a public offer stock and corp. bonds) financed and built.
ComCast in particaular can set their price for HSI at what they believe is the market price. Consumers have the choice to purchase or not as they see fit. At times to entice new customers to join they offer promotional pricing, as they see fit.
So far the blend of regulated (Telephone, Secuirty, etc) negotiated agreements (Most cable started and is still under the control of a negotiated franchise agreement which often set a price for "lifeline service plus fees and services to be provide for public benefit * ) and the unregulated HSI products have returned a profit in the historical industry average of approx. 10%, fairly modest for a publicly held company.
* I would suggest if you want influance over the franchise terms at next renewal you become involved in the PUBLIC reneogoietion process. then you would get a chance to PROVE that their broadband services should be a REGULATED utility.