Let me re-phrase and clarify an unanswered question:
In theory, how much NON zero-sum-game savings are possible through
different schemes (congestion pricing, per-bit charges, even throttling,
etc.)? Naturally, answering this depends on assumptions of behavior,
elasticity, etc. but reasonable order of magnitude estimates can be
enlightening. Of course, twists include issues of competition and
provider-switching (instead of just application or usage modification).
Let me ask people out there, what sort of re-distributions of rates
would be acceptable - if a new system (which I'm not advocating, just
hypothesizing) gave, say, 80% of users a measurable savings (and
improved quality) and 20% of users higher fees, is that desirable?
90:10%? 99:1%? Who decides (and how)? I am skeptical of "market" systems
since we don't have a competitive market at play.
Rahul
[note, I am not making any normative statements over SHOULD vs IS on
zero-sum-pricing, and I am not silly enough to ignore corporate
incentives for profit-maximizing, or that nothing will make bare-bones
broadband in the US as cheap as that in India]
In the US companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as
they can for their stockholders. If you think Time Warner, or any ISP, will
reduce the price for Internet access for the "average Joe" who uses minimal
bandwidth to something that is comparable to India (even with exchange rates
and cost of living calculations included) you are mistaken. The ONLY reason
why Time Warner is doing this is because it is a chance for them to make
more money.
You can have your opinion of what SHOULD and should not happen, but
realistically this is not how business in the US works. Especially not in
the telephone / cable / DSL markets. I have no special knowledge of this,
it is common knowledge.
