Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:28:59PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > A) Those who use relatively little bandwidth, but profit greatly from
> > the wealth of information available on the net.
> >
> > B) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but also contribute valuable
> > information (in posts to mailing lists, web pages, etc. etc.)
> >
> > C) Those who use a lot of bandwidth but don't contribute to the value
> > of the net as a whole.
>
> I would suggest adding to this:
>
> B') Those who use relatively little bandwidth but also contribute valuable
> information ([...]).
I think the above classification scheme is incomplete. Though I may not have
outlined it in sufficient depth, what I envision is a bidirectional transfer
of payments system, with some packets paid for by the sender, others paid
for by the receiver, and with some data packets worth more than others,
BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING DATA IS WORTH MORE TO THE RECEIVER OF IT.
(For those who haven't read it, 'Being Digital' by Nicholas Negroponte
brought what had been a rather vague idea in the back of my head into much
clearer focus. I HIGHLY recommend the book.)
Bandwidth usage is just one component of the economic model I have in mind,
especially since bandwidth is also bidirectional. The other aspect has
to do with valuation of the data, and the possibility of a transfer of
payment (or at least a portion of it) all the way back to the originator
of that data. (Think of it as an Internet copyright usage fee if that
makes it clearer, though that's somewhat beyond what I had in mind and
opens a whole new can of worms. The LAST THING I want is for lawyers
to get involved in defining the Internet.)
A small website (noncorporate and not advertiser supported) currently
exists strictly because of the good will of the provider. If there
was an INCOMING payment stream based on hits or some other reasonable
measure, it might more than offset the costs of maintaining the site.
The same thing is true for mailing lists.
For those arguing that my scheme might have slowed down the development
of the web as we know it, I would counter that a system whereby popular
small websites received income from the folks hitting it might well
have sped up the growth of the web, if such a thing is imaginable.
I think it would have sped up the rate at which some data repository
sites came online, things like newspapers.
And for corporate sponsored or advertiser supported websites, wouldn't
the corporation or the advertiser be MORE than willing to pay the transaction
cost, since in effect they already are. (I don't know that I would go
so far as to transfer some of that payment back to the reader, that might
encourage a whole new breed of 'bots.)
Rich, assume for a moment that this could be structured so that for low
volume users like you the costs would be no greater than under the current
system, and quite possibly substantially less if your contributions to the
Internet exceeds your consumption of it. Does that overcome some of your
concerns?
As we may be boring some of our list manager brethren (and sistren?) to
tears here, I'm willing to move the discussion to another forum if those
willing to continue discussing it (even if in the negative) are willing to
come along, too.
--
Mike Nolan
