Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!decwrl!ucbvax!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!ms6b+ From: ms6b+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Marvin Sirbu) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: billing for use Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 90 16:42:32 GMT References: <9002200013.AA23205@world.std.com> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 > The economics of networking are very subtle. But I do know one thing, > the BOCs don't increase charges soas to get everyone to simply use > less. It doesn't really work that way with infrastructure economics, > it just ain't that simple, or that depressing. I'm not advocating conservation for its own sake. The key part of my argument is the last sentence. " I believe, however, that one element of such a policy must be to provide an incentive for users to spend effort|dollars on software which is conserving of network resources when such expenditures are cheaper than adding to network capacity." Additions to network capacity are not free. To the extent that packet conserving software allows costly expansion to be deferred, and the software is less costly than the expansion, the software is to be preferred. True, off peak capacity has low marginal cost. Conserving capacity during off peak doesn't save much in plant expansion. That's why utilities with usage charges use peak load pricing. They only need to encourage conservation during peak hours, since it is peak hour use which leads to the need for plant expansion. Marvin Sirbu