We're less sure why the company has a 300GB plan included as one of its four standard pricing tiers. If evidence suggests that there are is a significant percentage of users exceeding 200GB in monthly downloads, why not set a 400GB or 500GB plan? It just doesn't seem likely that many users are going to want to pay an extra $20 a month for a mere extra 100GB.
However, this is basically quibbling, as we're sure Internode wouldn't have made this change without a great deal of consideration for the usage patterns it's seen amongst its users. The ISP has a history of constantly tweaking its plans to match changing prices and user behaviour '” and we're sure there is a reason behind the quirky 300GB option.
In actual fact, it looks from Hackett's blog post that the 300GB plan has resulted from a 50GB increase in quota at the same price point. So perhaps that previous price point represented what Internode considered users would be willing to pay at a certain tier above the mainstream '” and it actually added value to it through a 50GB quota increase.
Now, the only place where Internode's plans really fall down are when it comes to plans on Telstra's infrastructure. $139.95 for a 250GB plan with a telephone line? $89.95 for a 100GB plan? That's just plain ridiculous '¦ and we wouldn't recommend paying these prices if you can escape them by signing up to an Internode plan which uses the ISP's own infrastructure '” or even that of Optus.
Now, whether you slam Internode or not for its pricing on its Telstra-based plans depends on whether you believe Hackett that Telstra Wholesale is making life tough for ISPs. And personally, I do believe the executive.
Hackett's never been less than up-front and honest with me about Internode's operations and plans. Sure, there's been some stuff that he hasn't been able to discuss '” every company has confidential matters which its executives won't talk openly about with the press '” but that's normal. And he'll generally tell you why he can't discuss something.
