Re: Penny Black & bandwidth

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Scott Moskowitz <scott () bluespike com>
> Date: October 17, 2008 1:11:18 PM EDT
> To: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
> Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: for IP : Penny Black & bandwidth
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan, we *are* paying upfront, every month. I pay an ISP, and do not
> believe they have any clue as to the value of this e-mail or my time,
> let alone your time. But, we are not differentiating between access &
> service. Nor are the providers providing measurements that we can
> expense to determine "who" pays. I know what my bill says, my
> SurplusMeter & PGP tell me quite different things. And, to top it off
> providers decide what and how to filter exchanges of data (DMCA, one
> example - spam masked as small biz marketing is another) without
> regard to the content or even context of the exchange - except when
> those decisions can be used to argue that capacity is being hurt -
> the "scare-city" argument.
>
> This is not a postal system: it is a medium of exchange, just like
> currency. Generally, FEDEX makes money: USPS does not. Their
> logistics/distance planning is obviously superior as FEDEX handles
> USPS packages. FEDEX was an innovator though and always seen as a
> challenger to postal systems. I do not see how [providers today are
> better at logistics over what packets are more valuable than others -
> thus they allow spam. Individuals engaged in direct peering
> arrangements probably have less spam problems: but these arrangements
> are also limited by what the provider dictates.
>
> Machines are only cheaper for that which we can define and objectify:
> they are not efficient at determining "value". Until we are able to
> differentiate between what is my network and what is the cloud, we
> are ignoring innovation in how to maximize demand for particular
> packets  over other packets. Spam, like "willingness to pay", is a
> driven by human decision-making. If we knew the false positives, we
> would not need a market.
>
> Respectfully, that is the issue - we need a market to determine the
> expense &/or value of bandwidth - including situations were the user
> shares in the provider's upside (eg, even trademark holders are
> increasingly demanding a share in Google search results). Hey, I wish
> the text providers were able to innovate something like twitter for
> the disproportionate value they attribute to SMS bandwidth, but they
> didn't & twitter doesn't make money ... Even though humans filter
> through twitter with all its warts ... I have some theories on how to
> value tweets, but that would be off-topic & might increase the value
> of this e-mail above a penny black ;-)
>
> Thanks for letting me raise my objection[s].
>
> Sincerely,
> Scott
> http://www.bluespike.com/
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Dan Lynch wrote:
>
> > Scott, the "cost" I am trying to minimize is human time to filter
> > through
> > the false positives that inevitably happen. Machines will always be
> > cheaper
> > than humans. As for the system architecture of who pays the "penny"
> > I leave
> > that to others to decide.  But it has to be like the postal
> > systems:  you
> > gotta pay upfront to insert anything into the system.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On 10/17/08 6:39 AM, "Scott Moskowitz" <scott () bluespike com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > I object! With due respect, of course.
> > >
> > > It is not monetary consideration that should be charged but  
> > > bandwidth
> > > which is the commodity being scaled. It is the "medium of exchange"
> > > in our networks and is thus a more appropriate means of measurement.
> > > Allowing ISPs to charge for something without regards for a
> > > consistent business model never getting the competitive juices
> > > flowing in the market - more to the point, ISPs sell the user data
> > > anyway under the rubric of SEO/small business marketing/etc. Plus,
> > > how can you expect such a system to work between providers when a
> > > comparable market, namely text, has not been subject to competition
> > > in a market sense.
> > >
> > > If you know what your network is & how it is defined between you and
> > > your provider then business models can evolve. E-mail is a service
> > > that can be priced in terms of bits per seconds, arbitrary values
> > > like a penny should be discouraged to better value information
> > > services; but, the apparent refusal to price this way must mean  
> > > there
> > > is too much value in providing it for "free" - spam has more value
> > > than free e-mail to the provider. Next, bandwidth is continually
> > > getting cheaper - the kilowatts to run all these machines is not.  
> > > So,
> > > ideally, the value add in labor to innovate against these purely
> > > human problems ("spam" must work or humans would not do it & ISPs
> > > would not tolerate it to the extent they do - *or* the cost is
> > > already being borne by us with little "objections") exists to solve
> > > the problem.
> > >
> > > Last, how do we do the accounting? What is a fair split between "my
> > > network" & the access I get from the ISP? Do sender & receiver pay?
> > > If so, why? The preference would be to assume that the ISP will
> > > continue to emphasize billing & advertising as the bulk of their
> > > expenses while forcing them to allow innovators to maximize the bits
> > > in any bit per time calculation of their choosing within reasonable
> > > terms of service with their provider  concerning what is "my  
> > > network"
> > > & what is the provider's? Billing on that basis is more likely to
> > > enable more innovation around the network instead of fights over
> > > whose penny it is.
> > >
> > > I do agree with Prof. Farber - a penny today may indeed be zero  
> > > cents
> > > in three years - probably sooner.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Scott Moskowitz
> > > http://www.bluespike.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would bet that most ofany money would go to overhead of billing  
> > > and
> > > staff. It is one way to kill email I guess. Also a penney today  
> > > and 0
> > > cents in three years
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
> > > Date: October 16, 2008 12:04:35 PM EDT
> > > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:      Comcast blocking mail to its customers
> > >
> > > Why don't we admit that the root of the problem is money?  Both the
> > > source
> > > of the problem of spam and the solution to it.
> > >
> > > Spammers do it to make money.  Duh...  And since email is  
> > > essentially
> > > "free"
> > > they are sending out billions of free emails.
> > >
> > > A "solution" is to charge for email.  A penny a post.  That will  
> > > stop
> > > bulk
> > > spammers dead in their tracks. And which of us is not willing to
> > > spend a
> > > penny per email sent?  (We already do spend more than that with
> > > our ISP
> > > charges and equipment amortization.) Oh, I know there are problems
> > > with
> > > implementing such a system, but the benefit is huge.  The penny
> > > could do
> > > into a Universal Fund (to be fought over, for sure) and non profits
> > > could
> > > apply for refunds for their causes, etc.
> > >
> > > Bring on the objections!
> > >
> > > Peace,
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: PGP Desktop 9.8.3 (Build 4028)
> > > Comment: ldap://keyserver.pgp.com/
> > > Charset: US-ASCII
> > >
> > > wj8DBQFI+JWf4pyNKt60a9cRAkZKAJ0Taw0EjgTW8rBkcxDS9LZ2l2BjEACgqXG3
> > > eVpfkz9/1dnc2ebjhOLyATU=
> > > =iqHy
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> > Tel. 707-967-0203   Cell  650-776-7313
> > My assistant is Dori Kirk   Tel. 707-255-7094  dori () lynch com
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.8.3 (Build 4028)
> Comment: ldap://keyserver.pgp.com/
> Charset: US-ASCII
>
> wj8DBQFI+MdD4pyNKt60a9cRAvb8AKCnF0a1eNYtrHASklmghwDl364QeACfZ29v
> eUZJcPipY4T5I4sTWuaNBvY=
> =20Q+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com