I agree with Lee's last comment. It is the choice of the word "screwed" It is a business model decision and you may decide not to offer that model.
One more point: I find most "unlimited" offerrings to be deceptive even if they disclose it in fine print in their TOS. I must say that I have found some that explain "unlimited" very clearly on the same page.
Kanti
On 6/3/05, Lee Barken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
--
Regards,
smbPBX
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Biz mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
