07-25-2015, 10:27 PM
(07-25-2015, 07:10 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote:(07-25-2015, 09:08 AM)BoFox Wrote: Interesting insights, thanks Rollo.
The company must be assuming that everybody who has solar panels are quite wealthy, so that the $57 surcharge should not really cause too big of an issue with them. If I were the guy on that farm, I'd still go solar anyway, even if paying a surcharge of $85/mo. Wealthy people could easily organize class-action lawsuits and possibly win a case there. Perhaps find a way to convince the government to give rebates or incentives for going "green"... like with buying electric/hybrid cars.
That's exactly the point.
Americans are getting punished by these Corporations for using less power and less water too.
That's just wrong and I get pretty irritated at those that support that.
Let's say me reading this site costs you $8/month in bandwidth, but you've worked out a deal with my cable modem provider Charter that they give you my usage totals and I pay a $10/mo fee based on that.
You're providing me with content at cost, but I'm paying the cost plus a little profit. Then I start accessing the site in a different fashion, lets say I go satellite and they don't give you my usage so I just use the $8/mo worth of bandwidth and you pay it.
Do you applaud me for my ingenuity, or revile me?