Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> It's been discussed before -- and among other things, folks have pointed
> out that the web would never have evolved if this had been in place.
Not any more than the existence of long distance phone charges inhibited
the spread of fax machines. It might even have STIMULATED the entry of
information providers into the marketplace, which might well have forced
the HTML standard to grow up faster than it did. (If, in fact, it has
grown up yet, but that's a subject for a different mailing list.)
> No, I don't think you're crazy. But I don't think it's necessary
> or advisable to change the cooperative model of how the 'net works,
> and I *certainly* don't want to change it in response to the abusive
> behavior of spammers, a move I'd consider tantamount to admitting
> that they've won -- I'd rather pursue and destroy them instead.
Actually, I got interested in this idea less as a means of controlling
spammers than as a more equitable means of paying for and thus allocating
scarce net resources. Your phone service isn't fixed rate, neither is your
gas service, your electric service, or your grocery bill. You pay for
what you use. Why is that a bad thing for the Internet, just because it
isn't the way it used to be?