Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Don't you find that it should be at least somewhat commensurate with the work required though?"

Business doesn't work that way. You make hay when the sun shines.

And there are cases when you can't charge. Because of things your competitors are doing.

In a restaurant they don't charge you for napkins and water although they could. (Actually they do charge for premium water but that's a fairly recent invention).

The idea of business is to make money.

It's not up to anyone to decide how much profit is "enough" for comcast to make. If they could simply charge more per month without games they would.

Sometimes it's easy sometimes it's hard.

Take airlines. They would like to charge you more for a ticket but if they do you might not book the ticket. Better to be able to advertise a cheap price plus extras than an all inclusive price without extras. Why? Because people are not rational buyers (generally) who can figure in all the things and the "total cost of ownership" as they say with cars.

"doesn't that seem a little bit like they might be playing on peoples lac of knowledge of the systems involved?"

Well of course they are. But so what?

There are many times when companies take features out of a product just so they can make different tiers and charge premiums.

Take web hosting. Take companies who sell people extra disk space that they will never use and don't know they don't even need at all. There are many examples of this in business.

...and this is why the last mile needs to become a regulated utility. Whose place is it to say Comcast is making too much profit? Mine, as their former customer.

That's a rather large non sequitur you're wielding there. You had your say when you cancelled on them.

Seems like it works just fine for my natural gas, electric, and water/sewer utilities. The last mile is well on its way to being the next one to be regulated.

Exactly! This is how I feel about companies too. I am charging them. They are trading their services for my money. If I can get their stuff cheaper without dealing with them, why would I trade with them?

Shrink-wrapped software, for instance, has no value proposition from the original proprietor. Photoshop? Why should I trade with Adobe for a few hundred dollars when I can get the same from another user for no charge from him?

Someone like you opened my eyes to the false dichotomy. Businesses and consumers are not different. Each wants something that the other has. They want my money. I want their product. If they can get more money without changing the product, they will. If I can get more product without changing the money spent, I will.

> Business doesn't work that way. You make hay when the sun shines.

The idea of a "fair deal" IS part of business, if customers decide it's part of business. Once you factor in our basic sense of ethics and fair dealing, it's clear that Comcast has none.

The problem here isn't that ethics aren't part of business, but rather, there is no competition. Customers have no choice, therefor, there's no reason for Comcast to behave in a way that better serves their customers.

Aren't you a domain squatter? That would explain a lot about your way of thinking.

>In a restaurant they don't charge you for napkins and water although they could. //

Yes they do. They don't itemise the charge, but they charge for [ie taking account of the cost of] these items too.

If I went to a restaurant and they said "your meal is extra because you wore a brown shirt" then I'd know they were ripping me off and I'd declare it; of course they are within their right to do that if they notify the customer sufficiently of the charges. That wouldn't change the fact they're ripping people off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com