| Scott 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:e7atc2ptrr8d7t4
57ugdtei9hackifoqpb@
4ax.com...
>
> Opportunity (not "opportunistic") cost includes the cost of lost
> opportunity from resources consumed, including network capacity. In the
> case of cellular service, that's the ability to service a full revenue
> subscriber, measured as the difference between the low revenue
> subscriber and the full revenue subscriber. Thus, for example, if a
> full revenue subscriber is $50/month and a low revenue subscriber is
> $25/month, the opportunity cost of the low revenue subscriber includes
> both the marginal cost (direct cost plus overhead) plus the lost
> opportunity revenue for those resources ($25/month). Thus even if
> marginal cost is only $10/month (it's probably much more than that), the
> opportunity cost is $35/month, versus only $25 in revenue, which shows
> why it's a bad deal for the supplier.
So, if I read all of this correctly, you are saying that CIngluar does not
have the network capacity to provide service to all of their current
subscribers. therwise, why would you claim this phantom "opportunity cost"
that you associate with lower revenue subscribers?
|