On 1 Feb 99, at 14:39, Mike Nolan wrote:
> I disagree that the cost factor is irrelevant. If it cost bulk e-mailers
> 10 cents per message to do it, or even ONE cent, we probably wouldn't be
> having this whole discussion, would we?
I certainly agree. I think that the cost-recovery model NSF left us with
has been a REAL double-edged sword. UCE/UBE is clearly the bad part of
it, and...
> But if it cost one cent each for me to send out my mailing list traffic,
> with over 500,000 messages delivered (traffic x subscribers) in a busy
> month, I probably wouldn't be doing what I do, either, at least not the
> way it currently functions.
In addition to things like FTP archives, online software/patch
distribution (and IRS tax forms :o)). YMMV as to whether web pages with
1 meg of graphics or streaming video and audio are good things or not,
but they probably would hardly exist if the sender had to pay.
> That's why I'd like to see some kind of economic pricing model for
> net traffic. Unsolicited messages are paid for by the sender, solicited
> messages could be paid for by the recipient.
This is the obvious solution and the only problem with it is that there's
no real infrastructure for it [and everyone will jump up and down and
complain that "the net has always been free"].
If the net switched over to some kind of "pay for what you use"
structure, the direct implication would be that you'll get a bill from
your ISP for all of the bandwidth you generate and the resources you use.
Indirect implication: things like TUCOWS and the various real-audio sites
and document archives and such won't be able to work the way they do any
more. What'll have to happen in that case is just like it is with every
other medium: you would have to "subscribe" and just as you have to pay
the bill to receive Scientific American in your USMail, you'd have to pay
the bill to receive your favorite mailing list via email. Folks running
mailing lists would have to handle billing and cost-allocation in a means
very much like the way in-print publishers do.
For simple stuff [FTP and email] it seems simple enough. The web would
be a different matter [although, maybe it would be better if folk
actually had to think twice about putting multi-hundred-K images on their
$@#$%@#$% web pages :o)], but you'd have to do something to put in
bandwidth limits [else some hacker could run you broke by just running a
bot to access your web page ten million times]. I've never understood a
useful pricing model for usenet, but the thought of some kind of 'poster
pays' to make those cretins flooding it with hundred-meg copyright
infringements have to actually PAY to do it couldn't be bad.
there'd be a lot of changes in the various details [e.g., unrestricted
mailing lists would probably be a thing of the past: no matter who pays
for it, when someone actually has to *pay* if some bozo sends a megabyte
attachment to a list that goes to a thousand people, folks will want to
have some kind of control]
I've been associated with the Internet for a VERY VERY long time, and it
has -never- made sense to me that it has never had a proper cost recovery
model that involved paying for what you use (I lay this problem on NSF's
doorstep; the situation was arguably different for DCA and ARPA, but
there was never any excuse, IMO, for NSF not to put in proper
accountability/accounting). What's interesting is that it'd be
relatively easy to do: every router and gateway already keeps enough
statistics to be able to generate bills for the next person 'downstream'.
Scary/intriguing thoughts, but it ain't gonna happen, more's-the-pity,
and so we're still left with the mess...
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
