In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent, and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.
They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses. Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

Stan The Man wrote:
In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Stan The Man wrote:
[...]
You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

I imagine that's absolutely true; but I'm all for anything short of
downright lies that gets water on the agenda.

The link you kindly posted gives me a "not found". I've had a look at
the URL, and it looks credible enough. I'll try again later.

Make sure you don't have a blank space before the 5 in the 5112902 bit

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

Ah, that was it. My usually fairly fanatical editor's eye let me down.
Duly bookmarked, thanks.

--
Mike.

Janet Tweedy writes
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

The poll tax was independent of consumption. Unlike electricity and gas
(where you can use less), food (where you can eat cheaper), TV license
(you can do without TV), with poll tax there was no way to reduce what
you paid by reducing your consumption.

Water rates are similar, but unlike poll tax they are based on some
assessment of ability to pay (albeit a very inaccurate one)
--
Kay

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary Fisher
writes

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

Mary


Yes I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay for what we actually use. What I
said was that each unit at the moment is being priced low enough to be
appealing. People will think that they will save money as average bills
will be low.
When everyone is on a meter or enough that makes no difference, the water
companies can double or treble the price per unit as they see fit and you
will be paying a lot more for your water than you thought!

We might be paying a true price. Water is a valuable and essential asset.

After all, as people install meters they will arguably be using LESS water
thus the amount of income generated will be reduced as water use is
reduced. This means the companies will have to charge more per unit to get
their investment and their profit returns.

er, well, I thought I knew what I meant................

LOL!

The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Mary

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent,

Again - how do you know?

and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.

How do you know?

They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses.

How do you know?

Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

How do you know?

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect. I'll let you know when they reintroduce
Courts of Piepowder, no doubt as some subtle consequence of the
Congestion Charge.

--
Mike.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent,

Again - how do you know?

and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.

How do you know?

They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses.

How do you know?

Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

How do you know?

He knows you know

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

How do you know?

It's my business to know - but I won't tell you what my business is.
However, most of the information is published by Ofwat, Defra, the
Environment Agency, the WRc, the Water Demand Management Group, the
water companies, WaterUK, CCWater, Waterwise, Exeter University,
Imperial College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research and
various associated technical bodies and NGOs.

Here's a quote from CCWater (formerly the Consumer Council for Water):

"Current metering policy is inherently inefficient as, with the
exception of new developments, installation is piecemeal as companies
react largely to notifications of change of occupation or to customers¹
requests to install meters. This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs. If
companies introduce tariffs that vary according to the stress on supply
and increase according to consumption above a certain threshold, then
consumers will be able to adjust their water use on a rational basis.
Such tariffs would need safeguards to protect vulnerable groups and
those on low incomes."

Information on Kent's seasonal tariff trial can be found at
http://www.savingsontap.co.uk/tariff.html

For the rest, Google "identiflow"

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect. I'll let you know when they reintroduce
Courts of Piepowder, no doubt as some subtle consequence of the
Congestion Charge.

--
Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

How do you know?

It's my business to know - but I won't tell you what my business is.

In that case I shan't read any further.
However, most of the information is published by Ofwat, Defra, the
Environment Agency, the WRc, the Water Demand Management Group, the
water companies, WaterUK, CCWater, Waterwise, Exeter University,
Imperial College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research and
various associated technical bodies and NGOs.

Here's a quote from CCWater (formerly the Consumer Council for Water):

"Current metering policy is inherently inefficient as, with the
exception of new developments, installation is piecemeal as companies
react largely to notifications of change of occupation or to customers¹
requests to install meters. This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs. If
companies introduce tariffs that vary according to the stress on supply
and increase according to consumption above a certain threshold, then
consumers will be able to adjust their water use on a rational basis.
Such tariffs would need safeguards to protect vulnerable groups and
those on low incomes."

Information on Kent's seasonal tariff trial can be found at
http://www.savingsontap.co.uk/tariff.html

For the rest, Google "identiflow"

In article , Stan The Man
writes
This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs.


I'm so glad Waitrose and Tescos don't have
"innovative tariffs"



--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

In that case I shan't read any further.

I'm sure I will get over that, somehow. I've already wasted enough of
my time trying to help your understanding. Try doing some research of
your own if you are really interested - and if you are not, don't
troll.

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Stan The Man
writes
This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs.


I'm so glad Waitrose and Tescos don't have
"innovative tariffs"



I wouldn't know one if it jumped out and shouted at me :-)

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

Even with a rebating system, a tax payable in respect of individuals
rather than income or wealth sounded awfully like a capitation, or poll
tax, to me: I didn't need the information mediated by a political
party. We can quibble over terminology, and perhaps we can disagree
over whether it was a good thing or a bad one -- though I imagine we
can agree it was badly presented; but it was a tax on people, not on
anything else.

--
Mike.