ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: requiring payment (was spam)

2003-05-28 19:53:59
Thanks John for your support!

I think we should all be careful not to return to the good old days of Telex
bilateral agreements!

Cheers...\Stef

At 22:06 -0400 5/28/03, John C Klensin wrote:
Since Stef has chimed in here, let me point out one other aspect of payment 
systems, one that is more or less the corollary to his observation about 
bilateral agreements.  It is an interesting and useful property of the 
Internet email environment that we have SMTP servers all over the place, some 
of them operated at rather large scale and others operated at fairly small 
scale.   In general, anyone can send mail to anyone else.

But, as soon as one institutes either charging schemes or collections of 
bilateral agreements, there are huge incentives to created "hub systems" or 
"carriers" -- entities whose business it is to make agreements with lots of 
local providers/servers (whom they will come to call "customers") and 
bilateral agreements with each other.  Without that, everyone who wants to run 
a mail server has to either establish bilateral agreements with everyone else, 
or a regulatory regime becomes necessary to make the sequential settlement 
arrangements work. Economies of scale, if only in agreement-making, imply few 
enough, and large enough, carriers for governments to start taking interest on 
a "competition" or "anti-trust" or "consumer protection" basis.   Sorry to be 
pessimistic about this, but I think it quickly takes us where we don't want to 
go.

Quoting Stef, "be careful what you wish for..."

    john



--On Wednesday, 28 May, 2003 13:04 -0700 Einar Stefferud 
<Steflist(_at_)thor(_dot_)nma(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hello Dave Morris ---

It would be helpful if you would explain how this payment
system of  yours might actually work in real life.

Perhaps like TELEX worked before it died, with settlements
between  the first posing ISP to the last receiving ISP, with
"settlement"  payments spread across all ISPs in between.

Of course this leads to bilateral agreements among al the
thousands of  ISPs, and collective agreements among the mass
of global ISPs.

Now, consider the cost of such arrangements, to cover the
frictional  costs of just being in business, plus the required
profit margins that accrue to any such massive payment
shuffling.

Everyone here advocating payments do not seem to understand
the overhead costs of collecting and distributing the money.

Be careful of what you wish for! -- You just might get it!

Cheers...\Stef




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>