Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
from the nickel-and-dime-you-to-death dept
There are certainly some similarities between the airline and broadband industries. Both are pampered, uncompetitive markets suffering from regulatory capture that allows them to literally write the laws that govern their respective business segments. Both insist that constantly skyrocketing prices are justified by an ever-improving "customer experience," while the actual customer experience continues to get worse as companies consolidate and competitors dwindle. Taking their cues from banking "innovations" in the 80s, both industries have also become obsessed with screwing over their customers via the use of increasingly sneaky fees.This New Yorker article by neutrality godfather Tim Wu makes this rather clear, noting that the airline industry made $31 billion largely from fees in 2013, a number that's sure to have skyrocketed in 2014 as the airlines get increasingly "creative" in below-the-line charges for basic amenities that used to just be part of standard service. Some friends of mine recently rode Allegiant Air, and told me the company charged a $5 fee just to print your boarding pass on top of the usual assortment of annoying fees (it's worth noting their beverages, including water, also aren't complimentary).
While the airlines like to frame this as an increase in consumer choice (hey, you can choose to not enjoy a pillow!), Wu aptly notes how this approach to price discrimination in less competitive markets consistently results in making your customers more miserable:
"But the fee model comes with systematic costs that are not immediately obvious. Here’s the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs be something worth paying to avoid. That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as “calculated misery.” Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it. And that’s where the suffering begins. The necessity of degrading basic service provides a partial explanation for the fact that, in the past decade, the major airlines have done what they can to make flying basic economy, particularly on longer flights, an intolerable experience."Earlier this year, Mike had already pointed out more than a few similarities between the broadband and airline industries, and how this behavior is closely tied to the net neutrality debate. Wu doesn't even mention broadband, though both industries feature oligopolies that abuse the lack of competition to keep the bar at ankle height to cut costs, then enjoy charging consumers more if they'd like to be less miserable. The overall transaction costs (physical, mental and monetary) of such a model become absurdly high, reducing the utility of the service and incentivizing an approach where consumers have to pay to elevate themselves beyond intentionally poor or constrained service, resulting in the flying experiences most of us know and love today.
The broadband industry isn't much different (something Stacey Higginbotham pointed out recently as well). That consumers are being given amazing new levels of choice and flexibility is AT&T's justification for the company's Sponsored Data effort, which erects entirely arbitrary consumer usage caps, then charges companies an extra fee if they'd like to bypass them. Likewise, T-Mobile argues that exempting only the biggest music services from the company's usage caps delivers great benefits to the consumer (despite tilting the playing field against smaller operators). While the net neutrality conversation (and the feeble rules we've seen so far) focuses on outright blocking of websites or throttling of connections or services (even though even the worst-behaved ISPs now avoid both), the real danger at the moment is the all-too-clever efforts that constrain the user while pretending to offer greater freedom.
Like the airline industry, in regulatory conversation there's a tendency to see these efforts as simple pricing creativity, when the only creative thing about them is in convincing consumers that less is more. Without meaningful network neutrality rules (in the stark absence of real competition), we're creating a slippery slope of intentionally hamstrung services where your only option is to pay a steep premium if you'd like to be treated even remotely like a human being.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: airlines, broadband, competition, fees, incentives, innovation, oligopolies, tim wu, tolls
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Frequent flyers...
Frequent downloaders, on the other hand... not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frequent flyers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
I know MakerBot is working on metal composite printing, but I don't think I'd trust flying in a 747 made of PLA or ABS filament.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
Or even a Cessna or other single or dual engine low altitude aircraft, those things are practically made out of Tupperware now. But the forces on a 747 at 520 mph at FL40 is a little bit more than the forces on a Cessna at 220 mph at 8,000 ft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frequent flyers...
Which is not the same as PLA or ABS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last time we went shopping, we needed a magnifying glass just to find the package under the large price increase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gas prices dropping ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gas prices dropping ...
I bet they argue that hedging was an appropriate business strategy, for our customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gas prices dropping ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: gas prices dropping ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I see the appeal to such actions, I don't think it's a wise choice.
Penalizing a corporation for being "too" successful does not foster a environment of economic growth. It would be counterproductive.
Secondly, it wouldn't work anyways, you would just end up with a bunch of smaller companies that are still controlled by the same entities. Take for example the breakup of Ma Bell. We ended up with 5 or 6 regional companies that were all still controlled by the same stock holders. And eventually they ended up buying/merging/acquiring each other again so we are back to one company called AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Set the standard at 10, or 15, or 25 LIKE services in any one market, and the consolidation of industries will stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't see this as penalizing anyone for being too successful. I see it as a safety mechanism to mitigate abuse and damage.
Regardless of that, though, I disagree -- I think is does foster an environment for economic growth. One of, if not the major, the problems our economy has is that we are prioritizing the wrong kind of economic growth, where the growth comes from megacorporations at the expense of smaller businesses.
What we really want, however, is an economy where there are a multitude of smaller businesses rather than a handful of huge ones. Smaller businesses help the economy overall to a much greater degree than large ones. Most innovation comes from small businesses. An economy that consists of thousands of business is more robust and predictable than one that consists of dozens. Small businesses are more connected to their neighbors and society than large ones, and tend to be better about being good neighbors and societal contributors. And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree that most of innovation and growth does come from small businesses and that they are extremely important to our economy. But the rub is that all of those megacorporations were once small businesses too. Why would someone start a small business knowing that there is a limit to the amount of success they are allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why wouldn't they? Seriously. If it were impossible to have a corporation so large that it can bring down an entire nation, it's hard for me to see how that would even enter into the calculus of whether or not to start a business (excepting for a minority of people who -- I would argue -- shouldn't be trusted with that much power under any circumstances).
I know a lot of entrepreneurs along the entire success scale. I don't know a single one who would avoid starting a business if it were impossible to grow it to monster proportions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. But you are using the term "monster proportions", what if that arbitrary line was drawn much lower than that, would it still not enter into their equations when starting a business? It would for me. Why put sweat and equity into something that has a limit as to how much you can gain from it in the end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why put sweat and equity into something that has a limit as to how much you can gain from it in the end?"
Regardless of legislative action, there is always a limit as to how much you can gain from any venture anyway. So the actual question at issue is not a yes or no one, but a scale: at what limit would you think a venture was not worth it? I pretty much guarantee that no two people would have the same answer to that.
I think, however, that there is no valid argument for having a limit that is so low that you or I are likely to ever hit it. The limit would be very high, as I started this comment saying. Limits that high are (approximately) never going to be encountered by any individual. They can only be achieved by corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I just noticed this while re-reading this thread.
Not so sure that's really true. I sell signs and a lot of those signs are for charity organizations and you know what names appear as sponsors more often then the others? The ones from the companies around here that our government has already declared "too big to fail" and handed bailout money to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is successful, and there is excessive profit and.or concentration of money. When a business owner has more income from dividends that they can spend, all they can do with their money is buy more businesses, and grow to the extent that they become too big to fail. Being too big to fail just means that they have control of a sufficiently large slice of the economy that they can demand the government, that is the tax payer, bails them out if their business get into trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still, that's an arbitrary threshold. How do you quantify "excessive profit"?
When a business owner has more income from dividends that they can spend, all they can do with their money is buy more businesses, and grow to the extent that they become too big to fail.
Well, to be honest, I've never bought into the "too big fail" nonsense and I live in the Detroit area. GM and Chrysler should not have received that bailout money, in my opinion, even though it would have hurt my local economy for a bit. Some other company and/or business would have stepped in and hired up the excess skilled workers in no time.
And just so you know, I do believe that companies engaging in monopolistic behavior should be curtailed. Competition fosters growth. I just don't see how capping success, just because a company reaches a certain size or worth, is helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's helpful because in our society money is very real power. If you accumulate enough of it, your power exceeds that of the government. At that point, the government (and therefore the citizens and nation) itself is at risk. There is a point at which the accumulation of wealth itself becomes a real danger to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see your point here, but still fail to see how one country limiting the size of corporations would help. We live in a truly global economy these days. It would just mean that huge foreign corporations would have the upper hand over American companies and more control of our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People say this as if it is both inevitable and means that we have no actual control over the extent or way in which it happens. I think that both of those things are untrue.
"It would just mean that huge foreign corporations would have the upper hand over American companies and more control of our government."
I don't see how that follows at all. Corporations would have exactly as much control as they do now: the precise amount that we (as a nation) allow them to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I believe it's already a fact and what I was trying to convey was that since the laws of our nation only apply to our nation, we would only be curtailing our corporations, not those of other countries, giving us the disadvantage overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please avoid ridiculous corporatist tropes like "penalizing success" if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. "Penalizing success" is a Libertarian strawman designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction that distracts people's attention from the real issue.
No (sane) person believes in a policy of penalizing success. What is a good policy, however, is penalizing abuse of power. Since an organization has to be successful to a certain degree in order to gain enough power to become abusive toward society in general, it's easy to accidentally conflate the two, especially if a malicious actor with an agenda has already deliberately conflated the two to try to confuse you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not using "penalizing success" for any other reason than that's how it boils down in my mind at the moment and I don't really care what labels you attach to the phrase. If you have a more preferred descriptive term for penalizing a corporation only because it has become to large or too profitable, then please share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What people do believe in is penalizing abuse, and simply because a corporation has to become successful before having enough power to get away with being abusive still doesn't turn that into penalizing success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep saying that and I don't believe you are correct. I've had plenty of discussions with people right here on Techdirt who do actually believe we need to keep corporations from getting "too big" (well, to be fair, one of them was OOTB and he doesn't count much). I'll bet you a dollar that if you asked that question at an "Occupy Wallstreet" rally you would find plenty of people advocating just that.
What people do believe in is penalizing abuse, and simply because a corporation has to become successful before having enough power to get away with being abusive still doesn't turn that into penalizing success.
I have no problem curtailing corporations that are abusing their power. I have a problem with setting some arbitrary limit to a corporation's size just to keep them from getting too big.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think there's some merit to that position. I think there is such a thing as too big to fail - that is, a company is so big and powerful that its failure would be a disaster for the economy. So we have three options: 1) accept the disaster, 2) bail out companies that get that big and fail or 3) don't let companies get that big. What we've done so far, number 2, strikes me as clearly the worst option of the three (except of course for the very wealthy who control such corporations, which is why we do it that way). I think number three might be the best option, but it's not easy to implement well. Perhaps a hybrid of 2 and 3 might be workable: part of any too big to fail bailout includes breaking up the company into much smaller pieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead, the taxpayers paid for their greed, the world's economies were shot in the head, some of the bums failed upward into cushy gov't positions, and the rest went back to doing pretty much what they'd been doing prior to the bailout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's definitely some food for thought.
I'm still not 100% convinced that "too big to fail" is really such a concern, but I've never studied economics that deeply, so I really don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Many people (rightfully) are outraged that a Court reporter could turn the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on their heads, which effectively is what occured once Santa Clara was cited as precedent in subsequent cases."
A court reporter inaccurately reported on the finding, and somehow courts used that, rather than the actual decision itself, as precedent. I'm curious how that happens - why would anything other than the actual written verdict be usable as precedent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of this explains...
The 1% are immune to these things, of course, which is why they are always implemented by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of this explains...
So their reduction of seating space and increasing of fees are accidental, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: None of this explains...
Incidental (tangential, orthogonal), perhaps. Businesses are supposed to minimize cost and maximize profit. It would be nice if they'd factor in making the experience enjoyable for their customers in order to make them want to come back, but budget airlines assume you won't care about that as much as getting inexpensive service. Vote with your feet if that's not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: None of this explains...
If only that were an option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captive market!
Oh, *sweet*, considering those are confiscated as potential WMDs prior to boarding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Captive market!
You can still obtain water after going through security, but prior to boarding - although in most cases you're stuck with either buying expensive bottled water, or using a water fountain to fill up an empty container (which you brought with you right?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off course they give you more
More choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the cellphone industry too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really tough to follow a well and long known script to make sure there are no contaminants, and that the solution is sterile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do know that the airline industry was deregulated in the 70s, right? And that it is so highly competitive that margins (when there's any profit at all) are in the 1-2% range?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The best stick to make companies improve is consumer choice: don't fly airlines that do this stuff. Or complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was thinking - aren't most of the airlines constantly on the verge of bankruptcy? Doesn't seem very pampered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think high quality goods and services is likely without competition?
"The effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear*, and to make them bad."
-Thomas McCaulay
* meaning expensive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Price of Flying
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-an d-why-nobody-noticed/273506/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
airline fees
Not that I like it much, but I am not surprised.
FWIW, the airlines are working on a sort of saddle-seat for passengers, You're not standing, exactly, but your body is mostly vertical. Thus, more rows per plane. I have mixed emotions about this, but if it keeps the a-hole in front of me from reclining into my knees, it might be worth it.
A note on fuel prices: some airlines do hedge fuel prices, but I believe mostly not. Why? Because while a spike hurts them, it hurts their competition, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: airline fees
IIRC there was a patent application for that - is someone actively working on putting it into planes?
Because while a spike hurts them, it hurts their competition, too.
But if they're insulated from the spike and their competition is not, they get a competitive advantage. I think most airlines hedge some of their fuel purchases much of the time. Is that enough weasel words? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Southwest, Young Man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]