[12597] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The CMU Internet Billing Service
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Robinson)
Mon May 23 23:30:10 1994
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 17:41:57 -0400
From: Paul Robinson <tdarcos@access.digex.net>
To: comp.org.eff.talk.usenet@decwrl.dec.com,
alt.politics.datahighway.usenet@decwrl.dec.com,
alt.internet.services.usenet@decwrl.dec.com, com-priv@psi.com
In article <0QhNu*rd0@fantasyfarm.com> bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie
Cosell) wrote:
: } Sure. And both you and he have utterly misunderstood my views. I really
: } don't have objections to fees charged for services that actually provide
: } added value above and beyond the basics - which I consider to be e-mail,
: } news and telnet connectivity. I object like hell to the idea that I
: } should have worry about byte counts and how many minutes I've been
: } connected.
: Sorry, but byte counts are what cost money, so why shouldn't you have
: to pay in proportion to the burden you put on the comm services? Why
: should someone whose telnet/ftp habit requires several T1-lines-worth
: of bandwidth pay the same for their network services as someone who
: gets by with a 2400 baud modem?
They do. You pay by the size of the pipe. A 14.4K baud permanent slip
connection is about 1/2 the cost of a 56K. And a T1 is about twice that.
There is no reason other than fattening the bank account of a
communications company by thinning mine to institute metering by volume.
What will happen is the small users will see miniscule to insignificant
decreases, the larger users will see huge increases and the difference
will mean that more money is pumped into the pockets of the communications
companies. I don't mind them making a profit, I just object to
eliminating a service that does pay them one in favor of one that is
designed for no other reason that to increase their profits. Telephone
companies have had *decades* to develop billing systems and they *still*
have problems getting accurate bills released. Are new providers
expected to do better?
: Not at all. And it is not a "complaint" --- it is an observation that
: 'flat rate' doesn't distribute costs in proportion to bandwidth requirements.
If you are paying for the size of the pipe you use, I suspect it does.
: Look, there are two sides to the coin:
: 1) the net is VERY cheap [as far as bandwidth goes], in which case
: why are folk so up-in-arms about paying for the fair-share of
: that bandwidth they consume?
Because every time a proposal has been made to reduce or eliminate the
classes of non-metered service in favor of metering (for example in
local telephone calls) a *few* people got *insignificant* reductions in
costs (like from $15.00 a month to $14.90), while *most* people paid a
little more and *some* people paid *a lot* more.
The end result was a massive increase in profit to the local telephone
company. It would be another thing if this lead to an equivalent
improvement in service, but it did not. All it did was increase the
wealth of the telephone company at the expense of the ratepayers. The
particular company was Illinois Bell, now Ameritech.
: 2) the net is VERY expensive, and then the question is: who should
: pay? It is fair, proper or reasonable for low-cost, low-burden
: folk to subsidize the bigger consumers?
If the result was fair allocation of costs to usage, I'd consider
metering but I suspect the end result will be that the average user's
bill will not change significantly; the large user will see large
increases and will not receive any additional benefit.
It costs money to run a pipe, to pay for maintenance and repair. But
that cost does not rise when a pipe is run fully loaded at the Committed
Information Rate promised. Therefore there is no *reduction* in costs to
use less and no *increase* to use more.
I ran some numbers once. Based on figures involved, someone who uses 1/3
of a 56K pipe (8 Hrs Day/5 days) should, under usage-based pricing, see his
costs drop by about 10%. The 100% user all the time should see a
trebling in rates.
As it stands, now, both pay the same rate. My numbers didn't even count
in the cost of metering which will increase the costs.
I have seen no numbers or arguments on metered access that disprove my
argument: that the end result of charging by usage means miniscule
reductions for small users, huge increases for big users and no
significant improvement in anything except the bottom line of the pipe
provider.
--
Reports on Security Problems: To Subscribe write PROBLEMS-REQUEST@TDR.COM
Paul Robinson - paul@tdr.com / tdarcos@MCIMail.com / tdarcos@access.digex.net
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Voted "Largest Polluter of digex.general" by Mike <voss@orange.digex.net>
