The article seems to avoid talking about it but it appears they "reduced" prices by reducing the cost of something they basically weren't selling while banning generic alternatives that were presumably cheaper.
I googled and the firm mentioned in the article seems to have been selling at it at 200 a month, so 2/5ths of the new "cheaper" price the article headlines with, or 150% increase for customers using that sevice, more than doubling what they pay.
I googled and the firm mentioned in the article seems to have been selling at it at 200 a month, so 2/5ths of the new "cheaper" price the article headlines with, or 150% increase for customers using that sevice, more than doubling what they pay.