It's not that I object to paying for web access while I'm traveling. Yes, I emphatically believe that it enhances a place's image to offer Web access for free, the way running water and heat are part of the package. Still, connectivity costs money to install and maintain, so I can deal with renting as long as the fee is reasonable.

What stinks is how it's dispensed. The billing increments are usually completely disconnected from the reality of how people actually use the web on the road. And that turns a sensible fee into something idiotic.

Hotels. Every place I check into offers the web these days. The smart ones, such as chains like Hyatt Place and Hampton Inn and nearly every privately owned hotel, offer it for free. They see it as an easy way to bait the hook. And I bite. I admit I am more likely to choose a hotel with free access than one that makes me pay. I know I'm not alone in this. But the ones that charge do so stupidly. Access comes in 24-hour increments there.

Now, think about this. You're going to check in at around 4 p.m. at the earliest. And you're going to leave at around 10 a.m. in the morning if you're lucky. That's about 18 hours. Business travelers will spend even less time than that in their rooms.

It's still too early to know how deep the room rate cuts will be, but we already know they'll be significant, and they're happening in a city where average folks could most use the price break. Last month, the average hotel room rate in Manhattan stood at a staggering $350, up $50 from just 16 months earlier. That price level is unheard of in most parts of America, but in New York's tight room market, the cost was buoyed by big-spending businessmen hitting town to schmooze with the likes of Lehman Brothers. Some estimates say Wall Street accounts for a fifth of Manhattan's economy.

The occupancy rate before the meltdown was a healthy 90%. Hoteliers know that's in the past. Not only are there fewer titans to feed that kind of traffic, but there's also the fact that surviving companies, particularly ones in the financial sector that feeds the city's hotel industry, are seeing the light and are seriously tightening their belts. Last month, hotels were projecting a six percent increase in rates next year, which was already about half as vigorous as usual. Now, they are already predicting that for 2009, room rates will largely hold at 2008 rates, if not drop a bit.

As hotels get ever more desperate to invent new niches to lure customers, we've have been hearing a lot about the "girlfriend getaway," vacations women take with just their girlfriends.

I confess I don't entirely get why we need the concept. Fun things to do are universal. Often, these packages include spa treatments, free cosmos, or something like that, which strikes me as more than a little sexist -- as if it's only women who like massages, and as if Carrie and Samantha would have no interest in, say, museums.

But whatever. Here's a woman-skewed concept that seems to have a place. The Naumi, a luxury hotel in Singapore, has launched a female-only wing for women guests. The concept, secured by private key-card access, reeks of boutique styling, complete with fancy Aesop skin care products, aromatherapy frills, and an entirely female staff. Since its introduction, staff says, the rooms have been at 80% occupancy, which isn't bad for a hotel, especially one charging $420 to $600 a night.

So far, the women-only zones are mostly confined to properties in Asia, Australasia and in Arab countries (such as this one in -- surprise -- Saudi Arabia), where presumably there are more women who prefer segregation for religious or privacy reasons. But the luxury execution goes way beyond simply providing a safe space. In fact, a manager at the Naumi says a big chunk of his clientele is women on shopping trips -- Singapore, a tiny city-state that is practically one big mall, is particularly attractive to the long-distance spree set. But women executives, too, not normally known for being timid, are also indulging in the new concept.

No one used to talk about this. But in the past year, several friends, all of them travelers I trust, have told me that when they stay at hotels, they always leave a few bucks on the nightstand for the hotel housekeeping staff.

News to you? This concept is growing. Call it Tipping Creep, which is the slow introduction of new optional surcharges in the world's service industries. But when to do it, where, and why are still open questions.

I asked one friend, who travels a lot for work, why she does it. "Because someone told me once that you should," is all she could think of. Not surprisingly, her rules are fuzzy: Leave money when she's staying for a few days, but not if she's only there for a night or two. Presumably, tipping in that way might encourage better service over time.

And there you have the two rationales for tipping: Because the staff needs it and because it buys better service.

Fast food restaurants and grocery stores test-market products all the time by slipping them onto the shelves. So often, in fact, that average consumers may not even notice when they've tried something impermanent. But hotel rooms are a different beast. Renovations are expensive, so they can't just remodel rooms and cross their fingers. And sometimes, ideas that looked good on the drawing board turn out to be hitchy in practice.

Most of the big brands conduct most of their experiments behind closed doors. According to an illuminating exposé from Portfolio.com, Starwood (Westin and W Hotels), Hyatt's Summerfield Suites, and Marriott all run mini-properties stashed in private locations such as warehouses and office basements. Loyal customers are quietly invited to give new rooms a whirl, although they're not usually allowed to stay overnight.

But Hilton operates a wing of an otherwise anonymous Los Angeles-area hotel specifically for the purpose of trying out new room ideas. Regular guests check in and out of the test rooms, conveniently located near Hilton's corporate offices. To ensure that only brand devotees are exposed to potentially disastrous experiments, its El Segundo Hilton Garden Inn property (which is the only one of the 260 HGI properties that Hilton directly owns and operates) assigns the prototype rooms only to people with Diamond frequent-stay status. That translates to folks who stay in Hiltons for about two months a year.

When you travel for work, you know the drill: Get receipts for everything. When you spend cash for stuff like meals, beverages, hotels, and rental cars, your employer is likely to pick up the tab as long as you've got proof of purchase.

But what if you have to spend money on the road but can't get a receipt? It's happening more and more. The major airlines have deployed their newest fees with such haste that they are not always equipped to issue receipts for on-board purchases. Ask a flight attendant for one, and on some carriers you're more likely to receive a blank stare than appropriate documentation.

Take U.S. Airways. As of Aug. 1, the carrier began charging for drinks of any sort, including $2 for water. Passengers are not permitted to carry their own beverages through security, and buying drinks in the terminal is not always possible either because of a time crunch or because of personal dignity over gouging. If you, a business traveler, decide during Hour Three of a flight that you're thirsty, the staff will sell you a drink but they won't be able to give you a receipt.

I called U.S. Airways to ask if any of its flight attendants were equipped to furnish receipts for this newfangled charge. The answer was no. Right now, an airline rep told me, there are "plans" to give on-board staff hand-held devices for printing receipts by the first quarter of 2009, but for now, they have nothing, and those nebulous "plans" could not be elucidated for me. U.S. Airways' flight attendants also have neither the training or the equipment to write receipts by hand.