

Kuala Lumpur Mandates WiFi for All Restaurants - eggspurt
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Kuala-Lumpur-Mandates-WiFi-for-All-Restaurants-137450088.html

======
mgkimsal
Any guesses that the city officials who passed this have an ownership stake in
(or kickbacks from) the few area telecom operators who can provide internet
service?

------
CWuestefeld
I see they're upping the ante in the War Against the Poor [1].

By ensuring that all restaurants have higher operating expenses, they can see
to it that prices stay high. And if _every_ restaurant has to do it, then
there's nowhere left for a poor person who doesn't even own a wifi device to
go.

Bravo! Now we just need to wait until the poor starve.

</sarcasm>

OK, I'm being hyperbolic, but the point remains that they're ensuring that
prices will be higher than they otherwise would, and are taking away the
consumer's ability to choose what attributes they want to pay money for.

[1] as opposed to the War on Poverty

~~~
dman
Maybe this will allow people to pay for a coffee and access the internet
everyday which they could not otherwise afford and translate into grassroots
innovation?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_this will allow_

But people are already allowed to do so: there already exist Starbucks and
other restaurants that offer the service. What is changing is that people will
be _forbidden_ from choosing a restaurant that doesn't provide the free
service.

 _they could not otherwise afford_

TANSTAAFL - This regulation doesn't mean it's _free_ \- you can be assured
that customers will be paying for it. All it means is that the cost will be
amortized across the prices of the restaurant's food. The result is that a
person who doesn't want wifi still has to pay for it. And thus, at the margin,
someone who could barely afford a meal will not be able to afford [meal+wifi].

~~~
cryptoz
Is it really the case that the poor are eating out at restaurants and will
"starve" if restaurant prices increase? I do not think it is. In fact, I might
suggest that this measure would save money for the poor: if restaurant prices
rise, perhaps they'll take the hint that cooking at home is cheaper and then
save more money? I'm aware my scenario is purely conjecture, but I think yours
is equally fake. There's no way that _restaurant_ prices will reduce the
poor's ability to eat food.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's
absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money
whether they want to or not.

Thus, to your point, it's likely that the total amount of restaurant dining in
Kuala Lumpur will decrease. Some people will choose not to pay the higher
price, and stay home.

~~~
fennecfoxen
If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to
account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine
who the burden will fall upon. Presumably some business-owners will also see
their costs rise. There may also be additional regulatory compliance costs in
excess of the cost of the wifi connection cost itself. It also may mean that
would-be restaurant owners cannot run services anywhere that it's impractical
to run wifi. All this may discourage new business. And maybe it's not a big
deal for this one regulation, but how many other similar small regulations
will a business face when it's starting up? Dozens? Hundreds?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to
account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine
who the burden will fall upon._

As the saying goes, being a good economist entails understanding what is not
seen. I think you hit a bunch of those in this post, and I think you're
correct across the board.

------
Achshar
Well this is interesting but unfortunately i see the information gap
broadening here. In my country (India) most of the restaurant owners don't
even know what WiFi or smartphone is let alone maintaining their online
presence.

