begin oe_protect.scr
Ian Hilliard <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think that Telcos need to move to charging per bit-moved.
>> That way, arbitrage won't happen, and you'll merely pay for what you
>> use, no more and no less. If you move multiple DVDs around the network,
>> you'll pay more than the person who just sends a handful of short, text,
>> emails. This is /correct/. You pay for what you use. It's not a
>> poll-tax, which is the approach favoured by heavy net-users (of course,
>> it's in their interests).
>>
>> You also need to pay a fixed amount for the maintenance of your access
>> link, of course. This probably should be a poll-tax approach, as
>> anything else would penalise those people who happen not to live close
>> to an LE.
>>
>
> There would be an interesting side effect of direct volume charges.
>
> There are major amounts of traffic generated by worms on the net. If people
> had to pay for the data they receive they would start being charged
> directly for all the polls of their systems by the countless infected
> Windows boxes on the Internet. For the Joe Sixpack that only does a little
> bit of surfing and email would be paying the lions share of his bill for
> data transfers he had not initiated.
>
> It would be interesting to see what Joe Sixpack would do when the total lack
> of real interest in security by Microsoft hits him directly in the hip
> pocket.
>
What a fascinating observation! I think you're quite right, it would
transform the attitudes of the public if they had to make a direct
payment as a result of the security problems inherent in Windows. I'm
sure MS would try to argue that it's not their fault...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Monitored by the American Human Association.
|
|
