Good find, tech101. Thanks.
About a week ago I received an unusual email from Pandora notifying me that my monthly allotment of time (40 hours of music) was about to expire. Would I kindly opt for all I could listen to for the remainder of the month for only 99 cents. I turned off the station I was listening to, figuring that I'd consume whatever time was left on my account when I really needed that "fix" that I sometimes need to get me through a boring day. I've not returned to it since, although I have in the meantime begun using other sources -- other free sites, even YouTube where it's possible to create play lists, etc. -- and another free site, Wolfgang's Vault, finding reasons to continue using those sites that I'd not fully appreciated or even paid much attention to in the past.
Analyzing my own behavior, in retrospect, I don't think it was due to the cost. In fact I can state unequivocally that it most certainly was not due to the cost. It was merely my first knee-jerk reaction, and I've not given any more consideration to the matter since that day. I think it's telling of how instituting the wrong kind of program might affect Internet usage going forward. Heck, it might even force some of us to begin living normal lives in the real world again.
As for the proposition of modifying pricing structures itself, as I've stated here in the past, I would not be opposed in principle to peak-shaving those 5% of users who account for 95% of resource drainage. Where I have a problem, however, is with human nature, since I sense that first mile providers would become sloppy greedy and continue to target the top 5% of users on a moving window basis going forward. Thoughts?
FAC
------ |
