@millernet
I absolutely agree with you on your basic argument, but just two small additions:
- Wingo and M-Budget are not subsidiaries of Swisscom (Switzerland) AG, but purely registered trademarks without their own legal personality, whereby “Wingo” is a proprietary trademark of Swisscom (Schweiz) AG, and M-Budget is a registered trademark of Migros Genossenschaft, which is registered by means of Franchising agreement with Swisscom (Switzerland) AG
- You are mistaken about the low-budget price of Wingo, because it is still CHF 15/month lower (when collecting the cheapest permanent promos) than the CHF 59.90 you mentioned and is broken down as follows:
A 100 Internet subscription easily satisfies all the needs of a normal multi-person household with regard to the subscribed bandwidth, because without operating your own servers or special applications, the difference in performance compared to more powerful Internet offerings will not be noticeable at all.
As a conclusion to the entire price and offer discussion, one can simply say:
Due to its size, Swisscom is already forced to make an attractive and competitive offer for every conceivable customer segment in order to be able to really hold its own against the competition from third parties, which means that Swisscom is currently one of the most expensive and expensive products with its “blue” product the product “Wingo” with one of the lowest-priced offers on the market.
From a moral and ethical point of view, you can’t really accuse this dual pricing strategy of being a rip-off, because Swisscom offers it both for a premium image and for a low-cost need.
It is therefore solely up to us customers to decide which price segment we want to choose individually and what we ultimately want to pay for it.
Hobby-Nerd ohne wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeiten zur Swisscom