Re: spam

You have to do more than say "you're wrong.".

If the corporation (like hotmail) brings in less than $1 per month from
each user, pays all of its employess, pays for all of its hardware,
software, and network connections, legal bills, and taxes from this
revenue, then quite clearly, there are no hidden costs, as you assert.

Clearly, spam can not cost more than they bring in, in revenue, else they
would go out of business.

There are sites that offer email services (unsubsidized), for $1 - $2 per
month. They also have no hidden costs, and no subsidies.

I also operate an email service, and I know that my servers, employees,
and everything else put together cost less than this for email service.

And in fact, I know of many email sites that are running $1000 linux
systems with $140 200 gig disks. I host some in colo. They are commercial
services.  At other colos (where I have facilities), I see ISPs running
Sparc 2's with single-ended scsi drives. It really doesn't take much to
make a dialup user happy. Guess thats why some dialup ISPs are offering
dialup and email for $5 per month.

And I already demonstrated that even if you buy a $45,000 sun
array, it _still_ comes out to practically nothing.

So, I suggest rather than make analogies about gas, you put together a
spreadsheet for a Hotmail-like service, and figure out how it is they can
survive, after all these years.

Crowds jeer. Governments listen.  Crowds jeer the unpopular. This has
nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong.  In fact, it is an
axiom that crowds are always wrong.  Anti-spammers are frequently nothing
but a lying, self-deceived mob of morons.  But spam is a real problem, and
it should be addressed, in spite of anti-spammers.

                --Dean


On Tue, 27 May 2003, Peter Deutsch wrote:

> 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...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------