No because their ability to charge is no longer based on usage but on how much they feel like they want to extort.
That’s not how capitalism works. The market does not simply tolerate whatever price they “feel like they want”.
20% degrade of a 56k connection is huge.
Of course. It would be the same as discontinuing the service. There is no business case for downgrading a 56k connection. They either leave the business and give their market share to the competition, or the 56k goes at the speed physics will allow. There is no amount of bandwidth loss dial-up patrons will accept, and also no amount that can be re-allocated to a broadband VIP customer that would be noticed. Makes no sense.
I specifically referenced not using solar. Using your neighbor’s power means the neighbor pays more.
It does not. The neighbor also uses their own supply. Using the neighbor yields less revenue to the company. The injection is a cash cow for the energy company, who resells it for 10× what they pay. Paying the neighbor for their solar is a total loss for the energy company. They lose the cheap power they would get at a cheap injection rate, and they also lose the sale of power to you. The energy company gets less money than they do if neighbors do not collude.
You using the public library increases the library costs.
It does not. It’s a flat rate. Unless you are talking about energy. Indeed I use library a/c power, which (unlike Internet) is charged at a measured rate.
It’s tiny but it is there.
Internet is not a measured rate service. It’s a flat fee and budget-capped.
If everyone did it it would be significant.
To be significant would be to encroach on budgets. As I said, libraries in my area are clever enough not to blow budgets. Some libraries have timers and quotas to control consumption -- control that is not in play on domestic subscriptions.
They are paid by taxes to keep the streets clean. It’s not distance or weight. If there is more littering, more street cleaners would be needed.
Not at all. The guy pulls along an industrial vacuum. He does not have to pull that machine down my street if I am the only one who was littering, and I divert my litter to a street that is already littered. Moving my litter from an otherwise unlittered block to an already littered block has the opposite effect that you claim. Less road coverage requires fewer workers. If everyone in the city puts all their litter on one block instead of scattering it, many street cleaners can be sent home.
This is in fact also necessary for your analogy to be accurate. If concentrating the same qty of litter in a smaller space were by some management’s incompetence lead to more cleaners, then the analogy does not accurately reflect the telecom service.