g'day,
Dean Anderson wrote:
...
In other words, cost plays a big part in the decision. But as has been so
roundly demonstrated, the cost associated with email is practically
non-existant, and does not ever cost any user more than $1 or $2 per
month, which they pay for email services.
Dammit, I'm trying to be good but you insist on repeating this canard,
despite the fact that the vast majority of folks have *not* agreed with
you, and some of us have specifically challenged (I wont be so
presumptuous as to say "refuted") your claim.
Gas in Southern California can currently be had for as little as $US1.61
a gallon. It's possible to buy a 200 Gig hard drive from Fry's in
California for about $US140. It's possible to buy advertizing supported,
limited storage public email accounts for a few dollars a month (heck,
you can even get "free" accounts at no cash outlay to you). This does
not mean that a car that gets 30 miles per gallon costs 5.3 cents a
month to run; this does not mean you can build a commercial quality file
server for under $200; And it most certainly does not mean that email
costs anyone "only $1 or $2 per month".
If you continue to repeat this claim using such words as "roundly
demonstrated", I will conclude that you are either a poor engineer or a
troll. In either case, you will eventually provoke taunts and jears from
the audience, and we're trying very hard to raise the tone of this
place. So please, cease and desist such activity at once.
And even if you can't master engineering math, you really should
consider learning some basic economics. If nothing else, it might be
useful to you in balancing your checkbook.
This is substantially different from the case with faxes. And it does seem
to be a valid arguement that if technology does eliminate the burdens
imposed, then the junk fax law could be reversed.
In the case of spam, there is no cost _shifting_ whatsoever, since by
definition, everyone pays their own way. Even spammers. Unlike faxes, the
receipt of a spam does not increase the cost of the recipient's email.
Email is usually fixed cost, and flat rate. Even when one pays by the
octet, the cost of a spam is in the millionths of a cent, which I think
is less than the cost to carry out the trash of one junk postal mail.
As we say in French, "Ca c'est des horse patooties". Again, the cost of
email is not merely the cost of the physical file storage, you need to
consider the cost of your time processing it, the cost of time spent
dealing with such things as denial of service attacks, the opportunity
costs paid when folks hijack resources from their legitimate purpose and
so on. There is also a "social cost" when, for example parents must
forego having their children use email because of fears they will be
exposed to the most egregious porn and violence. Ask for, or help
develop, metrics for measuring such costs, but please do not deny their
existance.
The cost of physical delivery and storage are but a small part of the
total cost of ownership here. By ignoring all but the upfront costs, it
looks suspiciously like you're trying to lend legitimacy to odious
practices by sleight-of-hand mathematics. Shame on you...
- peterd
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch pdeutsch(_at_)gydig(_dot_)com
Gydig Software
"Bungle..."
"That's an 'i', you idiot..."
"Oh, right. 'Bingle..."
- Red versus Blue...
---------------------------------------------------------------------