News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by mundo on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:22PM (#13989115)
Every time I hear someone argue for the efficiencies of privatization, I think of my water utility emulating mobile carriers and billing me for "Anytime gallons" and "Nighttime gallons" and "Weekend gallons".
Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by dpc_pw on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:48PM (#13989358)
This is quite popular in Poland for electricity. It makes a lot of economic sense.

Same with Internet. Back in the days I had a plan like that, where Internet would be faster and wouldn't count towards your quota if used in the night. All the heavy downloads would be scheduled to run overnight

Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by twoodfin on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:42PM (#13989286)
Instead, if you're in a drought-prone area, you get water bans.
Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by omginternets on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:45PM (#13989318)
... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point?
Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by elipsey on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @02:52PM (#13989404)
I think his point is that price economics would allow you to at least have _some_ water if you wanted it bad enough to pay more.

EDIT: Perhaps more importantly, dynamic priceing could be more efficient than a regime in which you can use huge amounts of water at a low fixed cost, and then suddenly none when it runs out.

Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by omginternets on Thursday March 30, 2017 @06:55AM (#13994331)
>I think his point is that price economics would allow you to at least have _some_ water if you wanted it bad enough to pay more

Right, and the point of a water ration is to ensure that everybody limits their water use to some prescribed amount.

What you and the OP are describing is arguably a bug, not a feature.

The point of contention here is not of price economics per se, but of politics. At issue is whether or not one should be able to circumvent a ration by virtue of his monetary resources. Some people (including myself) find this notion distasteful.

Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by splintercell on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @05:55PM (#13990972)
> ... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point?

It shouldn't be this way. It serves no purpose. You first claim that everybody has access to resource X at a reasonable price (because we don't want to discriminate against poor people), then when resource X starts to run out, they enforce bans instead of charging more to people willing to pay a premium (and getting the resource first) and then using it to expand production and access to everyone.

This story plays out everywhere, whether in Soviet Russia or in California or in NHS.

Re:Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income Peopl... by najati83 on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @04:27PM (#13990249)
This happens in Europe, at least with electricity, you can choose a tariff that is cheaper during the night and more expensive during daytime.