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. ÂIf you move multiple DVDs around the network,
> you'll pay more than the person who just sends a handful of short, text,
> emails. ÂThis is /correct/. ÂYou pay for what you use. ÂIt'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. ÂThis 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.
Ian
|
|
