On 28 Sep 2008 at 13:33, Adrian Stott wrote: > "George Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Exactly right: "he should pay for only the amount of the product he WANTS > >to purchase (i.e. EXPECTS to use)". So it would also be a violation of > >this rule to force a boater to pay a license fee based on his maxiumum > >possible cruising range. Forcing such a fee would be an abuse of monopoly > >power.
Those still reading should note that Adrian did not address the fact that his OWN WORDS, quoted above with emphasis added, contradict his argument for a cruising range component to license fees. > The analogy I suggest is to (electricity) utilities, under whose > tariffs you pay a standing charge and a usage charge. <snip> > If you know that on occasion you will need to draw an especially high > amperage, you have to acquire a higher capacity connection for the > whole time you are connected to the grid, not just for the time during > which you are drawing a lot of power. Surprisingly, this seems to support just what I've been saying. The customer CHOOSES the capacity ( = cruising range ) that he wishes to have. The utility does not (and should not) insist that every customer buy maximum capacity (as, again, this would be an abuse of monopoly power). > However, since BW has no way of knowing (or feasibly of enforcing I > think) where that boat might go, it sensibly can insist that what it > is offering as its standing charge is access to *all* the waterways > that the boat can reach and use from its home mooring. It cannot "sensibly ... insist" without violating monopoly rules. > II think i would indeed be possible to follow your point and allow the > boater to specify the list of waterways that he wants a licence for ), > even though he could (physically) navigate further. I am not actually proposing such a scheme. I am merely pointing out that if cruising range is to be a component of the license fee, a monopoly MUST allow the customer the choice of range. There is really no way to avoid it. And it means that the idea of charging based on "maximum cruising range" must be discarded -- that inevitable conclusion is the whole purpose of my argument.
