Free Business Plan About Net Neutrality

Malls provide free parking and access to internet as an intermediary good or services that attract customers. According to Hasker and Inci (2012) the “free” in this case is implied since in as much as the customers and clients are not directly charged, such cost are hidden in the goods and services offered in the malls (p. 2). For example, the averages cost of goods in the malls offering both free parking, as well as free access to the internet would slightly be higher than those without. Customers find it convenient even with the increased cost of goods and services to shop in the malls since they offer the most basic attraction to them. If there is no space for one to park, then very few customers would buy goods and services from the mall considering that the cost of parking would be viewed as unnecessary by the clients.
If one is charged directly for parking, the person would find it difficult to buy goods in the mall. For example, if one wanted to buy goods worth $50 with a parking fee of $10, the person finds it a bit too expensive to shop in that mall especially if there are other malls that offer free parking. On the internet, free access in mall attracts clients who stay there to use the free internet. As policy, no one uses the free internet without at least purchasing some goods or service(s). It is thus imperative that the cost of free access to the internet, just as the free parking is transferred to the customer by slightly increasing the cost of goods and services. Since the volume of goods and services in malls is high, the cost increase is so slight that it does not put away the customers i.e. the cost remains competitive to attract more customers if the mall do not have monopoly.
Internet providers cannot give free access to the internet since there are not intermediary goods and services upon which the cost of the internet can be transferred. Therefore, if the internet providers attempt to give free access, it must be tied to a certain cost, say the cost of the gadgets to access, or even advertising space. Failure to do so would lead to huge losses on the part of the providers. In places where a free connection is provided, the cost is catered for by the owners e.g. in building, the land lords tent to pay for the free access to attract clients to their building by paying for cost of intent connection.
An increase in the number of providers of broad band would increase competition. Since from an economic angle, if the goods and services provided exceed demand, the prices go down. Once the prices go down, many people can access internet as opposed to when there is monopoly. If any company is not the market leaders, competitive prices remains the most viable option to attract customers (Centre for Business Planning-issues affecting prices, 2014). Since all the players in the broadband provision cannot be market leaders, if the number increases, those with a small customer bases would decrease the prices of access.
As competition stiffens, the market leaders faced with the threat of reduced customers would also offer competitive access to the internet. The final result would be greatly reduced connection prices that would lead to more access to the internet. Chen And Riordan noted that the market share effect resulting from competition makes firms charge less than the monopoly prices since a duopolist serves less customers (abstract).

Works cited

Hasker Kevin, and Inci Eren. Free Parking for All in Shopping Malls. PDF. 26 July 2012. Web. 9 March 2015. Accessed from <http://hasker.bilkent.edu.tr/Research/Hasker-Inci-Free- Parking-2012-07-26.pdf>
Centre for business planning. “Issues Affecting Price.” 2014. Web. 9 March 2015. Accessed from <http://www.businessplans.org/pricing.html>
Chen Yongmin and Riordan Michael. Price-Increasing Competition. PDF. February 2008. Web. 9 March 2015. Accessed from <http://www.columbia.edu/~mhr21/papers/Price.pdf>