next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
You cannot control for the number of people using the same account number. It is like software sharing in offices and among friends. What keeps individuals 'in-line' with respect to accounts, is the passion for privacy and personal ownership.
CCN is a curious mix of collective and personal ownership. By co-operating we all share a common facility. As a collective unit costs are reduced. As individually we would not likely be able to afford it. We are even willing to 'share' with those who can least afford it.
But we are always seeking to individualize our participation, with unique identifiers, customized options, etc. We are willing to pay extra for the privilege. So, I would think that the tendency would not be to share many premium services.
¯-----------------------------------------
Re: the special phone. See my earlier response, duplicated below.
Given that there were no rate tables to go by, I surfed the CCN site looking for background data to use. In response to the above query, I rechecked by notes. The special phone is for PPP service, not a IP special service.
Regardless, the purpose of the rate table is to break down IP services into identifiable components. We are currently offering a bundled service, and the service fee is hard to justify to some IPs, and volunteers.
In other words, there are those in our various committees that have knowledge about the services provided. Now is the time to identify these services and provide the board and IP committee with the information necessary to complete the rate table.
Doug M
>>> "David L. Potter" <potter@chebucto.ns.ca> 05/27/99 01:14PM >>>
Hi Doug...
I've had a look at the services and I'm curious about both:
the "special phone option". Does this refer to a separate phone number,
extended sessions, ???, and
the PPP account.... what would stop an organization from distributing the
account information and having dozens of people using the same account? In
the past we've always maintained that accounts belonged to specific
individuals, who were responsible. for example. for mail sent from that
address, etc.
david potter
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Doug McCann wrote:
>
>
> >>> Christopher Majka <nextug@is.dal.ca> 05/26/99 08:59AM >>>
>
> wrote:
>
> > I've looked at the table you sent along, and perhaps I'm just dense
> > (always a distinct possibility) but I simply can't puzzle it out. I can't
> > get the numbers in this table-cum-spreadsheet to add up (in columns or
> > rows) and I don't understand what the A-J categories mean or how to relate
> > them to the Level and Service categories on the left.
>
> > I think the approach is excellent (of decomposing fees into a number of
> > incremental pieces): I just can't understand the structure of the table.
>
> > Can you explain and/or reformulate the table for dullards like me? ;->
>
>
>
> The original table is a spreadsheet. I removed blank, and subtotal
lines to reduce confusion. But I can see your point.
>
> Example calculation.
> Plan "G", starting at the top of the table and reading down.
> The member selects basic service ($50), unlimited space option ($100)
and special phone option ($50) for a total of $200 worth of services.
Hst is $30, so their total bill is $230. Contributions over $200 allow
for a PPP account, so the member would get this service, in addition to
the selected services.
>
> The 'donation' row indicates the amount required to reach PPP account status.
>
> Note under plan "A", you could have an IP that receives all the
services, short of a PPP account, but at no charge. The Scottish
Heritage site could be such an example. However, beyond the basic
package (first row) I think that some sort of approval process should be
in place, rather than an automatic provision of service.
>
> Doug M
>
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects