From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Local call charging announcement on Thursday?
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:17:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.114540.365@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> greg@whio.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
> 
> There is an important difference between raincoats and telephone systems
> that Mr. Withers seems to have overlooked. While it is quite possible for
> everyone to wear their raincoats simultaneously at all times, it is *not*
> possible for everyone to use their telephones in the same manner.
> There simply isn't enough interconnection equipment available. Not nearly 
> enough.

I agree completely.

> 
> If Telecom were to provide enough equipment to allow this, they would
> probably need to charge $1000 a month or some equally ridiculous figure
> for line rental.

True if it were necessary..........

{bit deleted}

> Mr. Withers would like to pay a fixed rental and be entitled to a certain
> share of bandwidth-time, which he can use or squander as he sees fit,
> without affecting anyone else's use of their share. This is fine, as
> long as he realises that the share he is entitled to is *not* one phone
> line times 24 hours per day. It is much less. If he were to use his
> phone that much, he would be exhibiting extreme greed and depriving many
> other people of their paid-for share!

Very true. 

> The problem is how to fairly allocate bandwidth-time. One way is to rely
> on the fact that - as Mr. Withers has pointed out - people do not usually
> spend all day using the phone, so just let everyone use it when they want
> and hope that things do not get too congested. With local calls, where
> bandwidth-time is relatively cheap and plentiful, this system seems to
> work reasonably well. 

It does work pretty well, doesn't it.......:-)
 
> However, it is not automatically "fair" in the sense that everybody is 
> guaranteed an equal share in the resource. It's just that there's mostly 
> enough to go around to meet demand, so nobody complains, or even notices
> much when some people exceed their "fair share" and are subsidised by
> others who do not use all of their share.

AS you said above......it does work pretty well. I've never had any problems
making local calls.

> Another way of allocating bandwidth-time is to keep track of, and charge
> for, the actual amount of bandwidth-time used by each person. This guarantees
> that each person gets what they pay for and vice versa; whether it is
> any more "fair" depends on your definition of fairness. What is more
> certain is that it has the effect of moderating usage, which is important
> in the case of long-distance calls where bandwidth-time is very scarce.

I see it as being unfair in the sense that people would be unable to use the
phone beyond the point where they were able to pay for it - a situation that
does not pertain under present charging arrangements for local calls -
provided you can pay the rental. 
 
> Unless technology makes long-distance bandwidth a lot, lot cheaper,
> applying the free-for-all system to long-distance calls would result in
> it being very, very hard to get a call through. All very fair, but hardly
> a desirable situation!

I agree. I was not completely serious about toll calls being free from
metering.

> 
> All things considered, I think that the present system - a flat fee for
> local usage, time charging for long-distance calls - is a reasonably good
> compromise and one that most people seem to be happy with. It's worked
> well enough so far, and I don't see any compelling reason to change it.

In a nutshell, I couldn't have said it better myself. 
 
Steve
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?