Pricing based on 'units of count' addresses the issue of non-display usage by stating which of the following?

• A. Consumer firms argue that they should not have to pay for data not used - when they can prove it has not been displayed
• B. Users should pay the same for data, whether used by individuals (non-display) or displayed publicly (e.g. Times Square for public and uncontrolled viewing)
• C. User based pricing models have been made obsolete by machine use (e.g. non-display)
• D. Non-display usage is always billed separately from display usage

Answer: (C)

Pricing by units of count ties charges to how much data is actually used, regardless of who uses it or whether it is displayed. When data is consumed in a non-display way—by machines or automated processes—the consumption still delivers value and should be priced by the amount used. Because the access isn’t tied to a specific person, charging per user loses relevance, and machine use makes per-user pricing models outdated. That’s why this statement is best: user-based pricing models have been made obsolete by machine use (non-display).

Other ideas don’t fit as well because unit-based pricing isn’t about equal prices for display versus non-display usage, and it doesn’t imply that non-display usage must always be billed separately.