Internet should be free

I am reminded of the old adage – exceptions prove the rule. If you want to make the point that this Wifi provision had absolutely no cost to you, because you paid no more to stay at the site than you had to pay when there was no internet, then one cannot argue. Plainly, your assertion that the WiFi was thus "free" is difficult to dispute.

However, such a literal way of looking at this is not what this is about and I think it misses Micky’s point.

He was making a generalisation about how business works; I do not think you can call him out with anecdotal examples, especially because, as CLs, they might not be a valid case. In any case, he did himself mention that some may treat the cost as a loss leader; but, as he said, it remains a cost.

In the short term, your CLs have decided that the cost of the Wifi can be paid for within their existing rates; perhaps they are hoping they will maintain the profit that they were making because the free internet will bring in more customers. If it doesn’t then, in the long run, they will have to put up prices, charge for the internet, or take a loss. The “free” internet is short term.  

If it does bring in more customers then it just means that each customer is to a tiny extent subsidising the Wifi – by having more customers they cover the cost of the WiFi, but the owner makes the same (or more) profit or less loss. But it is still a cost that each customer is covering. I might argue that whilst they were not offering free WiFi, they were overcharging. 

There are two follow up points. Firstly, CLs are different and not a good example of a business model. In most cases they represent a supplementary source of income and a lot of costs are spread over other revenue streams.   

Secondly, I wonder how much it would cost for a CL to provide Wifi. I don’t know the answer, and it will obviously vary from CL to CL, but I understand that a reasonably standard modern router will reach up to 92 metres outdoors. It might well be – I don’t know, I am just guessing – that the CLs did not actually have to pay a great deal more than they already pay for their own private or business WiFi and that, in fact, it had very little marginal cost to them at all. But whether it did or not, it doesn’t alter the case that Micky and others have made in this thread. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost!

I can’t see that the real cost would matter to us one iota. We don’t know the full story and are never likely to. Whether it cost £5 or £500k, our bleating counts for nothing as, if the club says it's chargeable, that’s the end of the story. There really is no need for the likes of you and I to debate costs.

And when on club sites if you use the clubs website it is already free 

So nothing to do with Wi-fi at all really🤷🏻‍♂️

Good luck on your better sites, EM, but a site in Carlisle ain’t much use if you need to be in the Durham area😁. Have you tried the club's non-fac offering at Englethwaite? It’s quite cheap and a lovely spot.

I assume the club site is the one in the first picture, very popular and well supported by the look of it, and the private one is the one with few takers?   

It seems the two others are CLs?and some are fine, but as seen by the popularity of club main sites many more do like to be comfortable with what is a known quality

Sorry but with so few LVs on site , l thought it was

I note complementry WiFi is available "in the cabin"

And what a list of other prices for the site

Oh I so much agree  but then I am the same as thousands of others, that know what is in their best interests 

We have in the past used CLs and commercial sites, if we need to be in an area that has not got a club site. 

We tried to book a CL last week as a club site on our amended at short notice tour was full on the days needed, and despite two calls to there answer phone and an email, still waiting a reply (no mention on answer phone if away)but a later call to the club site  was a positive for the dates wanted. (it pays to talk)

I don’t follow your logic there. If I already pay to run my own device, why would I be willing to support the club, either financially or spiritually, in forking out money to duplicate what I already have?

However, mine is not a grumble about the cost as such but the fact that we are asked to pay for something that is frequently not fit for purpose.

Your figures for site Wi-fi in Euroland are meaningless. Is that per day, week, year? Also, we have no idea of the operating costs overseas so it serves to make no comparison.

I’m happy to pay for dog walks, showers, dish washing facilities etc because they all work as they should and are fit for purpose if I choose to use them. Site Wi-fi on the other hand…..