Charging For E-Mail

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

And there are several more good arguments against it as proposed.

Dave


Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:52:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Subject: Charging For E-Mail
To: dave () farber net
Dave,

Just a few notes on the issues of "charging" for e-mail...

 - As you point out, any fee structure is likely to start off
   low and rise as attempts are made to maximize the profit center
   on the part of ISPs.

 - Once ISP e-mail charging schemes are in place, governments will likely
   express interest in potential revenue to be derived from such sources.
   The long-debunked rumor of the "e-mail tax" might well become a reality.
   It has already been suggested in some quarters that the U.S. Postal
   Service's new "Electronic Postmark" EPM/Authentidate system could
   ultimately be a model in this regard.

 - It appears likely that a primary initial use for e-mail charging schemes
   would be to allow certain classes of bulk mailers to bypass ISP anti-spam
   filters to directly reach the captive audience of those ISPs.  If you've
   got the bucks, you're classified as a "good" spammer and your wonderful
   offers will reach all those "grateful" e-mail recipients without
   interference from those pesky filter rules.

 - E-mail charging schemes can be used as an excuse to further bind
   customers tightly to their current ISPs.  The "SPF" e-mail domain control
   system already has this effect by discouraging the legitimate use of
   alternate domains by users in many cases.

 - Widely-deployed e-mail charging would likely require ISPs to attempt
   extremely tight, centralized control over e-mail routing to try prevent
   "unauthorized" (and uncharged) e-mail flows by users operating their own
   MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents), non-escrowed e-mail encryption systems,
   and/or other "unapproved" technologies.  Such centralized and enforced ISP
   control over e-mail would obviously have drastic potential negative
   privacy and security impacts.

 - The concept of widespread, enforced e-mail charging neglects to
   acknowledge the reality that e-mail is fundamentally an end-to-end
   Internet application that can be indistinguishable at the data level from
   most other applications.  The backlash to e-mail charging schemes would
   likely give rise to vast distributed "underground" e-mail transport
   systems, encrypted and even designed to masquerade as other types of
   data.  Even draconian attempts by ISPs to limit their subscribers' access
   to alternate TCP/IP ports would be unlikely to stem the flood of such
   alternate e-mail transport environments, that could even emulate
   standard Web (HTTP) traffic.  Illicit music file trading would likely
   look like a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Bottom line: Trying to charge broadly for e-mail could well provide
a textbook definition of "Pandora's Box" brought to life.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () privacyforum org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org
Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet
                     Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy


   

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/