Mike Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes. And this is how your idea is radically different from the metered
networks which are within easy reach of currently-available technology.
One way in which my current ideas differ from what you've been proposing
is that I think we should _not_ have a central transfer-of-payments agency
like you proposed. I think I have some better ideas concerning this, which
I will bring up on the RATIONET mailing list as soon as it's up and running
(list-managers really isn't the place for such discussions).
> (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.)
Thanks for the pointer; I'll try to read it soon. BTW, for others who might
be interested, publisher information is
London : Coronet Books, 1996
and ISBN number is 0-340-64930-5
> 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.
In fact, there will be several kind of mailing lists...
* Most will be continue to be offered as a free service, but with a
difference: Under the new concept, subscribers will pay for the cost of
transmitting their subscription request to the mailing list server, and
they will also pay for the cost of transmitting their contributions to
the mailing list server, and they will pay for the cost of receiving the
messages of the list. This will not be expensive for each subscriber
(after all, the real economic cost of transmitting e-mail will be close
to zero for most networks when it can be done in bandwidth which is
otherwise idle), but it will mean that if you have a very popular mailing
list site which needs a dedicated T1, the cost of the T1 will be shared
fairly among the subscribers.
* Some other mailing lists will not be a free service but (in addition
to making the subscribers pay for network costs) impose a per-message fee
on the subscribers which means they're actually paying for the service
offered by the mailist list site.
* Companies which are profiting from the fact that people subscribe to their
lists have the option of choosing to pay for all e-mail traffic (related
to the lists), both to and from their site.
-- NB.
--
Norbert Bollow, Zuerich, Switzerland Backup E-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
