Tom Whore wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 fielding@ebuilt.com wrote:
>
> --]> > Metered. All interactions on the 2X Internet will be metered, analyzed,
> --]> > and charged to customers. Due to the infrastructure needed and the
> --]> > complexity of the interactions, business models based on free
> --]> > interactions will be cast aside in favor of a fee for service model.
> --]
> --]Because that is clearly what the customers want. Right?
> --]
> --]Will the customers in the audience who want to be charged by the packet
> --]for Internet access please raise their hands? Thank you.
> --]
> --]But wait, in the first paragraph he claimed that the 2XInternet would
> --]"cost less" than the Web. How is it going to cost less when he just
> --]claimed that it will become user-pay? Oh, yeah... he thinks it will
> --]cost the big corporates less money than running big Web servers.
>
> Yea, I can see the horde of bargin hunting AOL/Juno/Netzero useres
> chomping at the bit to be Charged for clicking thru to a Recipe phile
> site.
>
> Transactional based service is not the dealio for the current system and
> will damn sure better not be for the "next" one. IF the last few years
> have shown us anything is that the motion of the users traffic TO
> something tangible equates into potential income.
>
Just to nitpick here, they may not be talking about actual money. I draw
your attention again to Mojo Nation, where end users "pay" for access to
the environment by making their own computing resources available for use.
I would definitely pay in this manner for access to content (say free DVD
movies) that weren't available on the regular Web. I would also pay if this
alternative network had better performance when it came to downloading such
files.
-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:22 PDT