Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!emv From: emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: billing for use Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 90 21:17:32 GMT References: Sender: news@math.lsa.umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: ms6b+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU's message of 19 Feb 90 18:09:05 GMT In article ms6b+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Marvin Sirbu) writes: One of the positive benefits of billing for use is that it provides an incentive for users to invest in conservation. The problem is similar to the problem of apartment renters for whom energy costs are bundled: they have no incentive to close their windows, or turn down their thermostat. One of the problems associated with billing for use is that is provides incentives to circumvent billing procedures, thus generating possible non-optimal behavior. Consider a tax on anonymous FTP transactions; users will either find a way to make their anonymous FTPs look like something else (run an FTP daemon on the SUPDUP port, or hide it up in some un-numbered port) or turn to heavier use of mail-based servers and clog up already jammed mail queues. Similarly, a tax on TCP services will induce people to use UDP even when it might be sub-optimal for use on their particular network. When you start to bill for use on a per-packet or per-connection basis, the Law of Unintended Consequences is bound to strike. If you have naive or uneducated users, solve their inefficient use of the network through education, not a tax on their foolishness. --Ed