You have raised marvelous points. Let me see if I can come up with reasonable answers
The point is consistency. I don't mind paying Rs 20 if its done in a consistent manner and is justifiable. But I don't like it if an operator is trying to blackmail me into paying more by selectively targeting what ever I am using. For instance, I don't use any social media, no facebook nada. Still, if the operators are given free reign, there is nothing stopping them selectively blocking services that I actually use and charge me extra for those exclusively.
Look at it from opposite point of view. A person who uses only facebook and flipkart has an opportunity today to browse for free. He can accuse the world for forcing him to pay for something he doesn't require (= plethora of other sites available through neutral net).
As I have been trying to say again and again, we are on techenclave and we use the internet VERY differently from the world around.
Most people with smartphones don't even use browsers. They use apps only. And they don't use internet as a library. They use internet as an interactive TV channel.
Oh please, These companies are lobbying not because they are loosing revenues and profits but because they see the opportunity to make 3000x profit where they are making 1000x profit currently. This was never about losing money, but about making more and more by exploiting the market in an unreasonable manner. It is the equivalent of going to pharmacy for an asprin because you have a headache and the pharmacist telling you that it will cost you Rs 10000 because you have a headache.
The problem with the example is that the pharmacist can never ascertain that you really have a headache or not. If you don't then you will walk away and buy from another pharmacist. Loss of business for the first pharmacist. So he may perhaps try it initially, but people will send the message by not buying from him. And he will come back to his senses.
So now lets examine the next possible question - what if ALL pharmacists everywhere start doing this. Then people will stock up the medicines. Most people do it even now with controlled prices.
Paying a cost because its mutually acceptable is different from paying a cost because you have no other option and forced to pay it. People do not always pay because its mutually acceptable. If you are bit by a snake and somebody is trying to take advantage of it to sell you anti venom for 10k when it normally costs 1k. You might still agree to pay it even if you do not agree cost being charged.
Taking advantage of is a wrong word altogether. Do we take advantage of laborers in India? Maids, construction workers, drivers, unskilled lackeys, coolies, everyone who is actually paid peanuts for doing job that takes their entire day. And leaves with only so much money that they can buy food, pay rent, but not save.
Does a company take advantange of its workforce? Does the skilled workforce take advantage of their employers for some niche skills?
Is Audi taking its customer for a ride with high prices charged compared to a Nano? Are poor people taking the rich people for a ride by voting for freebies and making the country poor? Are rich people taking the poor people for a ride by hiring them for small amount of money (compared to say US) to get their jobs done?
The snake example you give reminds me of hospitals. When we have medical emergencies - we do not go about asking competitive quotations from the hospitals. We simply get admitted and cough up the money upon discharge. If this money feels unfair - we get insurance.
If we are afraid of snakebite venom being very expensive, we get insured against it.
Yes, its important. People do not like being taken advantage of. I don't mind businesses making a profit because that is the goal of a business and I am not even the nitpicking kind, but I still do mind if a business is trying to take advantage of me. For instance if an auto rikshaw asks me 200 Rs for a distance that is worth Rs100 fare, I would rather phone for a cab which is going to fairly charge me Rs 250 or 300 for its service. I would rather pay more for a service that is asking for a fair charge than one that is trying to take advantage of me even if the final cost is less. On the other hand, If I am injured and have to go the hospital urgently and a cab is going to come quickly and the auto asks me for Rs 1000 taking advantage, I might pay it, but that is because I have no other choice and not because it is perfectly al right for them to take advantage of such a situation to overcharge their customer.
Fair price: how do you decide it?
How do you know that the Rs 100 fare is really fair? Because the Govt has pulled up some figures from thin air and made it seem that it is ok.
Apparently Govt has also pulled up some figures about poverty line. Do check the laughable figure.
Don't you find it funny that autowalla is a daily wage earner and he is refusing a chance to earn money? Most of the autowallas actually start the day negative because they don't own their autos. They pay some rent to the owner or they pay EMI to the bank. Isn't it funny that instead of getting an opportunity to earn Rs 100, he quotes Rs 200 and then goes away - all this while still burning the fuel.
Regarding the example for auto quoting Rs 1000 for emergency. The autowalla quotes this figure knowing that you won't be able to find any other means or even any other autowalla. Blame the municipal corporation for such auto scarcity. Scarcity always drives prices up.
If people could take up auto freely and start serving, in the case of emergency you will have access to many auto (who will be lured in to make money on your situation thinking about Rs 1000) but soon a kind of reverse auction sets in. I can assure that you will not have to pay more than what you would've paid otherwise.
