hi Matt, I simply object to the term "screwed". I don't object at all if I pay for an "unlimited" soup and salad bar and I only eat one plate. Restaurants that use the "all you can eat" model have some profitable customers and some unprofitable customers. That's how their business model operates. I understand your point and I appreciate your ethical approach that you don't want to take advantage of customers. I simply questioned the use of the term "screwed".
Best, -Lee On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Matthew Simpson wrote: > > From: Lee Barken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > hi Matt, > > I understand your concern and subsequent logic regarding unlimited > > services. My only comment is that business people take *risks*. > > Hopefully, the are calculated risks. When a provider sells an unlimited > > service, they are assuming the risk that the transaction may be > > unprofitable. I don't think anybody is getting "screwed" in this > > situation. > > You're not getting the point. Sure you can say that it is the provider > taking the risk that they can screw their customer by selling them an > unlimited service that costs more than if they bought it metered. But > somebody is STILL GETTING SCREWED [the customer]. Personally I don't like > doing business in which I am screwing a customer, even if my "risk" pays off > and I end up better off for it. > > > Either the venture is profitable or unprofitable. It reminds > > me of companies like AOL or Netzero who offer "unlimited" Internet access. > > Over time, these companies become very good at estimating the aggregate > > usage patterns of many thousands of users. > > No, they don't offer "unlimited". They ADVERTISE unlimited but you'll find > that if you leave your connection up 24/7 you'll get bumped off after a 4 > hour period, and after a while you'll either hit a hard limit, or you'll be > forced to upgrade to a higher class of service. We sell dialup wholesale at > TxLink, and everyone last one of our clients that offers "unlimited" to > their end-users has a hard-limit set in their backoffice, and most of them > have 4 hour session timers [some are generous and give 8]. > > > Sure, some customers will use > > more services and some customers will use less services, but the idea is > > to price your offer accordly, such that the net result is a profitable > > enterprise. If a company does a poor job of estimating and projecting > > usage patterns, my hope is that they will not feel "screwed", but instead > > just take some time to review their planning policies and procedures and > > take appropriate and reasonable corrective actions. > > So it's okay as long as the company makes out okay, you don't care that the > consumer is getting screwed in that case? > > > > > Best, > > -Lee > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Biz mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
