data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b51b0/b51b09dc808a15e496c7258a6f63c4b26b856c71" alt="The Media The Media"
Macropayments: ISPs pay Content Providers for Access 140
EssJay writes: "A norwegian newssite (digitoday.no) has a story (norwegian) about a swedish company's filter-system which enable content-delivery sites to differentiate between different ISP's. This means that the ISP has to pay a fee to the site in order to enable the site's content to the ISP's users. Another story (also norwegian) discusses the implications of this. They report that the swedish company (Tric AB) will "act as a third party between ISP's and content-suppliers with the intent to let the content-suppliers get a share of the access-income. It will act as a clearinghouse where the income from the ISP's is distributed to different content-suppliers in relation to size and traffic". According to a swedish newssite (Ekonomi24.se), Tric has already gathered the largest content-suppliers in Sweden and they are already in discussions with the large ISP and telecoms in Sweden (Telia, Tele2 etc.) which are positive to this. The background for this initiative is the problem of financing the content on the Internet. So far it's all been advertising and subsidising from other parts of the companies, now it will be the up to the ISP and telecom-companies to share the income with other actors. This would also be the death of smaller ISP's that feed off the free structure of the net, given that this model is applied to the entire net. And not to forget the new business created: clearinghouses. We were just waiting for another level of complicity." Either your ISP pays a fee to the content provider (raising your access fees, of course), or the provider blocks access to itself from all of your ISP's users and you have to deal with their complaints. We'll probably see this in the U.S. soon, as the next stage in the media consolidation.
All because of WAP (Score:1)
This isn't as bad as it sounds, and it's an idea from the mobile internet in Japan...
The dismal failure so far of WAP is in part due to companies providing content but getting nothing in return, consequently none want to do it. The Japenese i-mode mobile internet system already share revenues between network operator and i-mode sites and these guys are making a fortune.
With the number of .coms going down the tubes these days a form of income other than rapidly shrinking advertising pie is actually a good thing.
--
Ministar nepretpostavljenih okolnosti
Get in close for the Bees' eye view.
Premium Net networks? (Score:2)
This may eventually lead to the development of "networks" of mutually cooperating sites. The AOL Time Warner network (inaccessible if you're on Earthlink), the Turner network, etc. It would be like the current UGO/Snowball situation, except with teeth. You'd subscribe to packages of sites, like premium cable.
Gad. Well, now I know what I'll end up nostalgically reminiscing about, when I'm an old geezer. "In my day, it was all free! Free, I tell you! You young sprats today don't know what REAL surfing was like..."
Not that anyone cares, but... (Score:3)
Re:Proxies (Score:3)
Re:Beep Beep. (Score:2)
It's still all BS. There is no magical pile of money to be made on the Internet alone. Charging for content will simply cause the Internet to revert back to the ways of pre AOL; sites on the net for the sake of being on the net without commercial interference.
Read Marx (Score:2)
--
Re:Premium Net networks? (Score:2)
These advertising/infotainment sites have no value to thinking people anyway. Who cares if idiots will be forced to pay to access them?
--
Cable TV (Score:3)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5)
It'll never happen. People think that Linux has a chicken and egg problem getting access to commercial applications. Any system that charges ISPs for access to content has a much larger problem. They have to sign up content providers that have content that a significant amount of an ISPs customers are willing to pay for, and then they have to convince that content provider that it is a better idea to sign up with their service (and pay the requisite commission) than to simply charge the end user themselves.
Fat chance of that happening.
Especially since many of the content providers already are access providers. AOL/Time Warner stands out as the best example. They are already using their "special" content as a hook to lure customers. Many of the other "large" ISPs have the same business model. One of their hooks is special proprietary information or tools. There is literally no chance that they are going to pay dues so that their subscribers can view their competitors for-pay sites, as they would rather have their customers see their own commercial sites. And without AOL's customers, and the customers from the non-complying normal ISPs the service will be severely limited in its market.
The fact of the matter is that once a product becomes a commodity, putting it back in the proprietary bag is nearly impossible. I am surprised this particular company isn't trying to charge for air and sunshine while they are at it.
Currently ISPs are running on razor thing margins. They aren't going to pay access fees for their users. Web companies are going to have to find a way to charge their customers directly, or they are going to have to find a way to show advertisers that their advertisements actually work. Micropayments isn't going to work, and macropayments are even less likely to work.
Re:Go for it. (Score:1)
Tric's homepage (in English) (Score:3)
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com
Re:I'd prefer micropayment (Score:2)
--
Re:you're delusional (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Well, unless you mean earlier this year (2001), you are talking about last century (the 20th).
So much of my life occurred in the 20th century that when someone says something like "the (insert superlative here)of this century", it takes me a moment to realise that they're talking about the 21st.
Same old, same old... (Score:2)
So instead of looking to the end user, the sites are looking to the ISP. Well, just maybe, some ISPs will pay up. But they will have to raise their charges to the users; and again, the users will be faced with the choice of paying extra for "premium" content, or paying less and having to live without certain sites.
You know what? People will choose not to pay.
What really bothers me about this is that we're getting away from the concept of the location-transparent Internet. Up 'til now, all ISPs have basically been equal, and able to compete with each other on largely fair, equal terms - for instance, how often you get an engaged tone, how polite the helpdesk staff are, etc. But if this idea takes off, you may find yourself stuck with a shitty ISP because they're the only one in your area that pays for access to disney.com. (Not that you would ever be in this situation, which brings me back to my earlier point).
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:1)
Re:Same old, same old... (Score:4)
A few mainstream sites have begun trying a subscription model (Salon is an example, pr0n is another). From the site operators perspective is that they probably will lose a good deal of their readers; the question is if they lose too many, making the model a losing proposition or not.
From the POV of us surfers, the question becomes wether we are prepared to pay for the offered content. That answer is probably heavily dependent on what the content is and how much it would cost. If it's information readily available at fifty other locations, we would probably not bother, while if it's a site with unique material - and that we have become dependent on - many might well be prepared to pay. That given, for newssites (like dn or nytimes), I'd expect to get the full text from the printed version and no banner ads.
This also ties in to the question of payment on the net in general, of course. It doesn't matter if the enformation is perceived as very cheap, if the hassle to actually pay for it is too great.
With the demise of some sites recently, and a subscription model being tried for others, I've started to really think about what sites I'd be prepared to pay for. In the end, it turns out that there's about four regular sites that'd get my money (given a reasonable fee), while another dozen would be dropped.
/Janne
Not in the USA (Media consolidation?) (Score:1)
the USA or Canada. Looking at the recent
purchase of TVA in Québec where they must
sell the network TQS, there is no chance of
stuff like that over there.
Here we have the antitrust laws which forbid
control of everything. It is also impossible
to control news in one area. So tell me how
this so called media consolidation could ever
be possible?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
Er, no, it was about communicating between computers and route the information in such a way that if a node was down an alternative route could be found. Very important for Defense, which paid for it. Then, much later, it grew into this commercial beast with little of the (expensive) redundancy required to have good reliability.
If you by Internet mean WWW, then the initial idea wasn't as altruistic either, but was simply to find a way for researchers at CERN to link information together.
Time to start getting local wireless nets up (Score:2)
Minitel anyone ? (Score:1)
For the records, France Telecom realized in 1995 that the minitel system was dead and canceled plans to update the terminal. 6 years later, the online business as a whole is still a loss maker.
Not on the internet, at least (Score:2)
People on the internet are too used to the idea that everything can be had for free.
Here in Tokyo, there's a new service called Usen - They're offering 100 megabit connections to the internet. From what I've heard, they offer a lot of micro-payment-type sevices along with that connection.
You've got to put some real value-added services in the mix for micropayments to work. Would you put up with a lot of AOL/Time/Warner type crap to get the fastest possibe connection to what you actually want to see?
Trust me, it's not going to be based on any type of peer-to-peer model - People will always figure out a way to do that stuff for free. When 5 MB is no longer a big amount of data to email to a friend, i.e., when that's the size of your typical Outlook.NET email, it will be impossible to stop the free flow of MP3's and other BLOB data around the net.
Well, as long as there is PGP/GPG, that is...
Cheers,
Jim in Tokyo
MMDC Mobile Media [mmdc.net]
Doesn't go far enough (Score:2)
This idea is good, but just lowering the access cost for content providers may not always be good enough. In addition to access costs, it cost money to run the servers, pay sysadmins, obtain content, and manage a site. Some sites may not be able to stay up unless they can have enough of a positive cash flow to cover these things as well.
Not necessarily bad (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
"I hope" is right.
For those of us getting access through some means other than a freenet or .edu this might mean higher prices so our ISPs can write big checks to
Disney, Sony, ...
Even if I never visit their content I'm sure the price for those that do will be evenly distributed over the ISPs customer base.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Re:Premium Net networks? (Score:1)
Some of the sites I visit are like slashdot, and they have different problem. Most links presented here are on sites that will charge for the access (cnet, cnn(?), nytimes, eetimes, etc.) because that is what they are in the business for. And will I be able to access the articles that are presented on slashdot? I cannot be sure that I have the same access to some info as CmdrTaco or the original poster have. I definitely will not have the same ISP, as I am not in the US.
Re:The Taxas Myth (Score:1)
And in less than a hundred years we've reached 6 billion. That doesn't make you think?
From my article:Our best case above adds up to 60% of the continental US to feed everyone a minimal diet. The "realistic" (and still wildly optimisitic) case... 3.5 times the surface area of the U.S. Hmmm... only 19% of the US is arable land, and 25% is grazing land.
We don't have "plenty of land." Large chunks of land on Earth are not, and cannot be made, arable. And did you entirely miss the whole discussion of water?
The "Greed Factor" makes it worse, not better. Didn't it strike you how much land is needed for support in the best case? Unless you have a magic cure for greed, we're going to have to take it into account in coming up with a solution.
Ah, well, if that didn't convince you that the current (and projected future) situation isn't sustainable, I can't imagine what would.
The Taxas Myth (Score:2)
Actually, at this point it's around a ninth of an acre. And it's an extremely misleading statistic, if you think about it at all. I put together what I think is a pretty thorough refutation here [telocity.com].
Differentiation? (Score:2)
Will this be what is used in the future to differentiate AT&T Worlnet from Sprint from MSN from AOL from the local mom&pop shop? Will free access to the Wall Street Journal be attractive enough to cause the average Joe to switch providers when the information in the WSJ is available at so many other places? (I'm assuming that hobbyist pages will not fall under this type of agreement.)
Micropayments are possible now (Score:1)
As usual,
JMR
Re:..The love of money, is the root of all evil. (Score:1)
Meaty worthwild criticism is always welcome however.
-Matthew
Re:The Taxas Myth (Score:1)
What your paper doesn't factor in on all this is the Greed Factor.. Thats why we have an obessity problem in the US, and we have world-hungry the further away you go from the US. Man appears to have no clue about fair dispisral of what we have so much of.
-Matthew
Re:..The love of money, is the root of all evil. (Score:1)
But again. The only reason we don't have enough bandwidth is because all that dark-fiber is just laying there BECAUSE.. of Money.
-Matthew
..The love of money, is the root of all evil. (Score:3)
Then it went to public access.. followed by commericialzation of the latest saliva-inducing gold-mine that is the web. The Free Spirit is being drowned out by the desire to make money, which is nothing more then just a mirror image of the people who make up the real world, hopping onto the net and trying to do what they do in the real world... make money, get laid.
So whats happening on the internet is we see more junk, we see consolidation, we see great free-content sites like Mathworld fall pray to IP.
What are we to do?
The answer lies in figuring out the formula to reverse trickle down economics. Fight the system rather then continue to take it up the ass. Otherwise soon there will be NO PLACE to escape the real world, for it would have simply engulfed our latest and greastest escape.
I view the Internet as the Final Front for We the People. If we loose the battle here, we'll forever be under the grip of evil greedy men who know no other way. I think the basic ideals in the Internet more then hint that there is another way.
Heck, I have a friend who actually bought his girlfriend a present for her birthday IN EVERQUEST (it cost ALOT of platnium too)! You know what that tells me? We have a generation that finds value in the virtual world, and the virtual world is limitless, so shouldn't we be?
Another example.. Programmers are more likely to help people for free then Lawyers are. Yet both professions involve coded langauge. Lawyers have woven into the spirit of making money, whereas Programmers have woven into the spirit of the Internet. I can't thank the Internet enough for Linux. Wow.
It always amazed me that we had so many battles in europe over land. Not enough room for us. Then we discover America. And we still fought. Don't we have enough land??
There was once a study done that showed every person in the world (this study was done between 1900-idon'tknow) could have a full acre in Texas.
Believe me, the Earth has plenty of land. And we definitely have plenty of hard drive space. Man keeps fighting because it has yet to figure out another value system. How long are we to be animals under the guise of survival of the fittest? When are we going to actually stand upright and look up the word "Humane" in the nearest dictionary?
Sincerely,
-Matthew
Technetos, Inc.
Sort of kind of already done (Score:1)
Interesting to set it up in a non-partisan way though...
Seems the best thing to do would be to offer area-specific things to allow ISPs to differentiate themselves, or, maybe this sort of thing will foster interest-specific ISPs... hmm, wonder if NASCAR-fan.com has been registered yet...
William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
this _IS_NOT_ new. (Score:3)
Enyclopedia Britanica and many other research sites restrict by IP address, so universities have had to set up authenticating reverse proxies, so that some faculty member/student who's dialing up from home can still access the information.
The fact that this is moving to places other than the education front might be interesting, but I'm guessing that as it's been done on the education front for 6+ years, that the only real news is that someone's willing to set themselves up as mediators.
For more information about reverse proxying, take a look at
So what? (Score:1)
But, you never know what's going to happen...
I do not care (Score:2)
I do not care about their business model. For me it sucks.
If I wanted any of these, I would be an AOL member...
Why do you people are so excited about business models for making money on the Internet.
I can give you a business model: a painter makes paintings but nobody buys them. He then gets a gun, goes out on the street and shouts: whomever passes by my house has to buy a painting...
sounds like cable TV systems... (Score:2)
This means that the ISP has to pay a fee to the site in order to enable the site's content to the ISP's users.
What do I do when my ISP isn't 'carrying' a particular site? Cable TV networks only carry certain channels, and it's almost impossible to get less than mainstream channels added to the lineup.
Sure, there's more competition in ISPs than in cable TV these days, but no single ISP is likely to carry all the 'networks' i'm interested in.
Re:Who cares? (Score:1)
Re:Isn't this circumventable? (Score:1)
I would be very surprised if the anonymizing services could really afford these fees with the number of non-subscribers they're carrying.
--alt
Re:Isn't this circumventable? (Score:1)
You are so right.
What's that saying, "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." Looks like you're saying the same thing will happen here. It'd be much more complex once counter-measures got involved, but it would ultimately still work.
My bust.
--alt
Re:Media consolidation? (Score:2)
Think AOL/Time-Warner. At one time, AOL, Time, and Warner Brothers represented 3 of the largest media companies on earth. Now they're one company. Do you think this makes it cheaper or more expensive to obtain access to media?
Where the phrase applies here is that for Joe User to gain access to content, his ISP now has to go through another middleman. While AOL/Time-Warner or Earthlink will probably get sweetheart deals for this, Alteran's Fly-by-Night Local ISP service will probably get a more expensive rate per customer. This is why the big ISPs, like AOL, are not fighting this development-- they get to strangle out the few remaining mom and pops without incurring the fallout of being anti-competitive.
--alt
Pay for content, but not via the ISP (Score:2)
For normal sites, the interests of ISP's customers vary way too much. The ISP can't possibly subscribe to all services in the world, only for the The customer subscribing himself to those sites that really interest him, independant of ISP makes much more sense. The only problem to be solved is the (micro)payment. Also having access via different ISP's and places (home and work) is only possible when the user subscribes himself.
Re:Cable TV (Score:2)
Great (Score:1)
Wonder what my bill's going to be $50, $100 a month? (and thats for dialup)
Well perhaps the content portion of my ISP payment will become the largest portion of what I have to pay, then the cost of a cable modem will become a moot point.
They invented a filter... (Score:1)
From this news article in Swedish [ekonomi24.se]:
Tric [tric.com] has invented a filter which allows media sites to recognize what surfers have what Internet providers. This way the sites may allow or disallow surfers depending on whether the provider has an agreement with the site.
Is this an invention? Must have been hard! :-)
Re:I'd prefer micropayment (Score:2)
Re:Wow That sucks (Score:1)
---
Josh Woodward
Go AOL! (Score:3)
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
Point 1:
It would be easy enough for an ISP to opt-in on a case by case basis so users could pay $20/month for access but $25/month for "premium" access.
Point 2:
Heh. thats my favoriate. When was the last time something was implemented in the the business world simple because it was a better system?
Point 3:
Thats the thing about the internet, they wouldn't have to get to every ISP, just a few. Those could then sell full access or proxy access. "Your ISP isn't signed up for Slashdot? Pay $5 to foobar.com and get Slashdot and 50 other great sites!"
----------
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
This is where content sites are headed. Look at salon. These sites need to make money somehow, and if bannerad won't cut it, its either the ISPs or the users. Like salon, places probably won't get rid of all their free content, but offer special access.
First, many site visitors won't go looking for a proxy until the site is no longer reachable. Some sites may redirect the requests to a list of paid ISPs and proxies, but that could be a hassle to maintain.
it would be a hassle. but a paying hassle is better than going out of business
Second, if the only site you want out of the ones offered by the proxy is Slashdot, would you pay $5 for access to it?
I know the cable analogy isn't perfect, but I pay $30 a month when I only want SciFi and Comedy Central.
Third, users won't be able to go to slashdot.org via a proxy by typing slasdot.org into their browser instead they'd have to go to something like foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then foobar.org will have to rewrite all the internal site URLs.
There are many ways around this, cookies come to mind. If the content site (slashdot) really wanted to work with the ISPs providing proxies (and presumable paying them real money), you could type foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then slashdot could set a cookie and redirect you directly to slashdot.org. There are undoubtably better ways to do it.
I'm not saying its a good thing, I'm as much against the coropratization of the internet as the next guy, but in the post dot-com era, the content sites left really need a viable business model.
----------
Re:How does 2 help content providers? (Score:1)
Actually, backbones provide bandwidth capacity, not bandwidth data. Hosts are responsible for nearly all of the data. Some of it is fairly symetrical (e.g. SMTP) and some (e.g. streaming media) is highly assymetrical. In a settlement system, things like email would essentially be a wash. NNTP and the various 'web' protocols have the greatest imbalance.
If you have a T3 peering connection, you'd compare the difference between inbound and outbound traffic over that connection and settle the difference. If you've got nothing but web hosts on your side, you'll send more bandwidth out over that connection than you'll receive in over it (something like 6:1.) If you've got nothing but modems, you'll see almost the exact opposite in traffic patterns (1:6.)
The biggest side effect of this would be higher prices for bandwidth capacity for small ISPs who'll have to learn how to provide collocation services to balance their circuit, or die.
It might be a nice idea in theory to charge towards peers who consume data and away from peers who provide data, with a slight surcharge per bit to pay for bandwith costs, but hosting a spammer or a DOS attack will provide data just as well as good content.
DOS attacks are illegal and hosting spammers will turn your ISP into a rogue that'll be blacklisted by groups like MAPs and most have acceptible use clauses in the bandwidth agreements with their backbone provider. The last ISP that actively pursued spammers as customers, AGIS, was virtually destroyed by it. Even their legitimate customers found their email blocked as AGIS found their entire IP space blocked my mail administrators.
Also keep in mind that settlements will provide a mechanism to pay for quality multi-media content. It'll also reduce some of the strain on the backbone by encouraging ISPs to implement caching of static content.
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
You raise a good point, however I think that large ISPs could only keep out the small ones if the content providers were willing to charge a flat, high price. I don't think content providers would expect some mom and pop ISP to pay as much as AOL for access to their site.
Also, content providers would have to be willing to cut off the majority of their visitors if they only deal with large ISPs. If you look at the access stats for a large site, the highest percentage for a given domain (usually AOL, is in the teens.) This would likely be death for community sites, like
It's not unimaginable, just highly unlikely and doomed to fail.
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
Well, perhaps this is a troll, but I'll bite.
I've been using Netscape since version 0.99. And watched its demise. As the courts have upheld, Microsoft abused it's market position to paint Netscape into a corner. If you've built a business on selling an Internet Suite (TCP stack, Browser, Mail and News programs), how do you compete with a competitor that not only gives the same stuff away, but pays ISPs to give it away (and bars them from supporting Netscape as part of the distro agreement)? Remember that when IE was first added to Windows (part of 95b) you could download netscape, but it was at a blazing 33.6kbps max speed.
I'm sure Netscape could have done a better job defending itself, but being inept at self defense is not the same thing as suicide.
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying? Are you saying that ISPs would create tiered services where their users would opt in for access to restricted sites. This would mean that someone like CNN would go from 1 million readers to something like 20 thousand. First, many ISPs won't be extorted like this and will pass on it, most likely cutting CNN to something like 20% of its current traffic. Then if end users of the ISPs who do pay have to opt-in to get access to the one or two top sites they want access to, many would pass on the additional $5 for those couple of sites. If 10% actually opt-in, your talking about cutting down to 2% of the original visitors.
If instead you mean that content providers might strip adds if ISPs pay them to (basically bulk subscription), that would be interesting, but still unlikely.
Point 3: Thats the thing about the internet, they wouldn't have to get to every ISP, just a few. Those could then sell full access or proxy access. "Your ISP isn't signed up for Slashdot? Pay $5 to foobar.com and get Slashdot and 50 other great sites!"
Proxy access has a few problems. First, many site visitors won't go looking for a proxy until the site is no longer reachable. Some sites may redirect the requests to a list of paid ISPs and proxies, but that could be a hassle to maintain.
Second, if the only site you want out of the ones offered by the proxy is Slashdot, would you pay $5 for access to it?
Third, users won't be able to go to slashdot.org via a proxy by typing slasdot.org into their browser instead they'd have to go to something like foobar.com/?slashdot.org and then foobar.org will have to rewrite all the internal site URLs.
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
According to this dataquest press release [gartnerweb.com], Microsoft had already captured 39% of the market when NN4 was being released.
Let my explain my perspective with an analogy: Mr. Netscape decides to take a short cut through an alley in the middle of the night. Out from the shadows, comes Mr. Microsoft, who stabs (bundles browser with OS) Netscape, takes his wallet (gives away the browser and pays others to do likewise), and leaves him for dead. Bleeding but still alive, Netscape stumbles out of the alley and turns south looking for help, eventually he collapses, and dies, on the door step of Mr AOL who revives him as an undead zombie. Mr AOL hides Netscape in his basement because he has an agreement with Microsoft not to show him to anyone, not even his closest friends (their subscribers.)
Now, was Netscape stupid to go down that alley? Sure. Could he have done a better job of defending himself against the knife weilding attacker? Sure. If he wasn't in shock and new first aid, could he have lived? Perhaps. Does his failure to do any of these things adequately make it his fault that he was knifed and robbed? No.
Another thing to consider is that had Netscape been more successful in fighting off Microsoft, something the court says would have been difficult given Microsoft's unfair dealings, it would mitigate much of any claims of damages Netscape could now sue for as a result of those judgements.
Never Gonna Happen (Score:4)
Re:Go AOL! (Score:1)
This is what the Net isn't supposed to become... (Score:1)
Another thing: Who decides what constitutes "content"? RIAA? MPAA? Time/Warner? Disney? And how do we even know that their "special content" is even worth anything? I'm going to be mad as hell if I have to pay for "content" sight unseen and find out it's some sucky pseudoarticle "informing" me aboutBritney Spears' first zit!
Here's another twist: Haven't these guys heard of mirrors? What's to stop someone from gaining access to their precious content and mirroring it in a jurisdiction where they can't be touched?
This is an idea that needs to be stomped to death before it even gets off the ground.
Re:..The love of money, is the root of all evil. (Score:1)
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Re:I'd prefer micropayment (Macropayments = BAD!) (Score:1)
I small ISP's already buy their bandwidth from a bigger ISP.
death is change
I don't get it. (Score:4)
Just like ASCAP/BMI etc. (Score:1)
Isn't this circumventable? (Score:2)
Someone sets up an ad-based anonymous proxy server in one of the paid-for ISPs, and everyone can access the site. Am I missing something here? How do they stop this from happening on a large scale? This just doesn't seem like it'd be a very effective business model. If your payment scheme is annoying enough, people will try to circumvent it.
Think of a shared network of encrypted anonymous proxies, where everyone on the network lets everyone else on the network use their bandwidth in exchange for being a part of the network. Kind of like a grass-roots organized effort to combat silliness in pricing schemes (e.g. Napster or Gnutella).
Oh yeah, that's basically what the Internet was supposed to be in the first place. Silly me. The only way I could see this working is if somehow (miraculously) the costs of an Internet connection did not go up significantly as a result.
Re:Isn't this circumventable? (Score:2)
I was thinking more along the lines of a piece of proxy software that allows you onto a whole network of proxies. i.e. I have a connection to blah.com, but not blargh.com or xyz.com. I set up this proxy software so others can access my blah.com and I can access their blargh.com and xyz.com.
If you perpetuate this by a few generations, you get a system not unlike the original Internet.
Re:sounds like cable TV systems... (Score:1)
Don't ya think that the ISP will give you a checklist of 'channels' which you can pick 'n choose from?
I would think that cable companies would do this, too, but they don't. Well, they do to some extent. I can sign up for HBO or Skinemax. But, with basic cable, I'm getting things like the Womens' Entertainment network, Disney, Nickelodeon, and about 50 other channels that I'd rather not pay for and rather not get. But since I don't have a choice, I am paying for them and I am getting them. It's easier and more profitable for the cable company to charge everybody for these.
There's really not enough competition in the ISP market these days for them to make the extra effort (and lose the extra profit) of allowing personal choice in these matters. They make their money by selling you more, and it's not going to be any different with this macropayment business.
Re:Bring the choice to the users (Score:1)
Another thing to keep in mind is that this idea is being sprouted in Sweden - a country where nobody sees anything wrong with paying a premium for anything - and the local phone call to the isp(used to at least)was metered and cost more than the internet access.
I seriously doubt that this kind of model will fly in America/Canada - any more than metered local phone service.
MTV (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
Todays music and film industry is heavily concentrated at most of the levels, acquisition, production and distribution. Markets were always too rigid for consumers to find and sample and buy direct from artists.
Distributed finance on the internet, technically, allows every one of millions of artists, to go forward creating and selling content and every song could be with different musicians, writers, producers, distribution. And all of them could have different "cuts" of the proceeds (fixed, percentage, etc.) This is a good thing folks. Everybody wants this flexibility even the record labels and distributors. But the accounting was simply impossible before.
Distributed financial systems let the original funder, and the whole chain of distributors thru to the final website, radio station, record store etc. similarly, bid to perform distribution at different prices. This is a good thing too.
What is REALLY great is that if this kind of flexible, distributed system takes root in the media industry, you have also uncoupled the payment or settlement system. You have really unleashed a pandoras box because, at the same time unleashed 1 million artists looking for ways to get paid for gazillion small credits from a gazillion places his music might have been sold. Many to many charging, crediting, and settlement on a peer to peer basis. That is a cool thing. Even if there are clearinghouses. Once this is setup, it will educate millions of people about distributed finance. The central clearinghouse would be the only choke point and it would literally stick out like a sore thumb. It will look ridiculous. The artists, distributers, etc. would route around it within a few years, i.e. alternative settlement houses would appear.
Todd www.gldialtone.com www.arapxml.net
Re:Doesn't go far enough (Score:1)
Re:Bring the choice to the users (Score:1)
It's also good to note that the idea of per-ISP access is not new. Universities do have deals with sites like Webster or various scientific papers and magazines so that their faculty and students get "free" access to the services, when university pays a fixed sum, probably based on number of potential readers.
Even though I can see potential problems with paying for stuff you don't care about, that is exactly what you get with newspapers, magazines and TVs. Not all articles are interesting or good; you probably downright hate many of them. And still, there are good ones too, and those make it worth the subscription. Of course the power customers have in choosing what they want affects the success of these programs... But the basic idea might not be all that bad as many writers here have declared.
Besides; couldn't this be a new chance for smallers ISPs too? I would guess that even though big ISPs will get bigger discounts, smaller ISPs might be able to focus more closely on exactly what their customers want. Or, they could divide the IP-address space (including DHCP) so that they'd have "virtual ISP"s, if the IP-nubers are used for access/blocking, and their customers could choose which domain they want to be part of.
Well, anyway, it might be good to carefully consider all possibilities of the idea before dismissing as yet another Corporate Plot.
Re:you mean take away the choice... (Score:1)
Do you watch all the channels that are available for you on cable/satellite tv (or broadcast)? You are still paying for all the crappy channels you never watch. And the difference between playboy vs. NYT compared is similar to difference between columnist. You can subscribe just one magazine, but not just one columnist. But that's because of level of bundling.
Most important, though, is that if cost to get this mass subscription was significantly less than individual membership, who cares if you just use small part of them? You'll still pay less than for just getting what you want. And as an added bonus, should NYT interest you, not just Playboy, you can start reading articles.
As to universities, well, both students and faculty can be thought of paying for it indirectly. However, I guess that total costs are insignificantly low per person, due to fixed prices.
I'm not claiming it's not a problem that bundling might not fit your needs. But there are also opportunities there (cost, mainly), and it might even spur competition. ISP that has bet "feature set" for you would have a definite edge.
And finally, subscription model would most likely still only be used for minority of sites, and even those that do, would/will probably have a freebie section as well.
Doh (Score:1)
---
Re:Cable TV (Score:1)
---
good idea or bad idea? (Score:1)
on the other hand, when this does come to america, it'll probably just be used to funnel a bunch of money to msnbc or some other big-business net-presence that doesn't need it. there's very little chance of it actually getting money to the independent content producers - the ones who really need and deserve the money.
Re:Time to start getting local wireless nets up (Score:1)
This would be really cool :)
I built something like this years ago... (Score:5)
CompuServe GmbH also used this RPA technology to control micropayments to some of its more interesting (to some) content. The example that comes to mind was a site called Recht Online, which was a pay-per-view listing of all court judgements in Germany (I believe). However, there were many other areas of content which CompuServe wanted to sell, and not just to their own subscribers.
My job was to create an ISP authenticating proxy. The idea was that if you, as a user from ISP 'blinkenlichten,' wanted to view some pay-per-view CompuServe content, then you could as long as your ISP had a service agreement with CompuServe. It was the ISP's problem to figure out who viewed what, and how to pass the cost on to their customers.
Perhaps the most magical thing of that whole time was going onsite to a couple of ISPs (one in Frankfurt, the other in Dusseldorf), and seeing the highly sceptical sysadmins' jaws drop when I started happily connecting to expensive CompuServe content through their IP range.
Ironic part of the story: CompuServe lost the source code.
Re:I built something like this years ago... (Score:1)
Sorry Alanis, but that ain't irony.
It's shitty luck
Re:Cable TV (Score:1)
Implications... (Score:1)
I use one ISP to read /., another one - "The Economist", and by girlfriend's login to read "Gamespot". Damn! No more "click-throughs"!
But in the end this system will not work. For the business isps - ok, companies need real-time content. But for consumers surfing the web - NEVER!
It will put internet back to the 1990's - BBS (paid access) and free hobby and scientific sites. Do you want that?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
I like it not!
Re:Bring the choice to the users (Score:1)
>the ISP has no way of knowing what the users
>want, only they know, and only those who want it
>should pay.
Exactly, the ISP doesn't know what the user wants, therefore they may have to sign deals with severeal contentcreators, just to give their users a choice.
Re:I built something like this years ago... (Score:1)
Actually it's gross negligence.
I know it happens over and over in big banks and large telco outfits. Still:
Save for 15 minute perl-hacks, productive source code (including DDL SQL scripts) should never get lost. Period.
A ISP's view (Score:2)
I can see one of two possible outcomes from this.
2. This plan isn't successful - Smaller ISP's still make little to no money. The Larger ISP's have competition and the prices stay down as the Internet audience grows. With this growth eventually, advertisers seeking these new audiences start to pay the content sites to host their Internet ads once more. Note the recent trend of content sites refusing to provide click though information.
--
When I'm good I'm very good, when I'm bad I'm better, But when I'm evil you better run
Re:Never Gonna Happen (Score:1)
Do you? Netscape killed Netscape, but I wouldn't expect a Slashdotter to understand.
---
What's the /. take on this story? (Score:2)
But today, with the content market collapsing and ad revenue dissipating, the article makes /. as a possible solution to our collective content provider woes.
That's the kind of irony that tickles me.
Besides, what kind of freaky porn site [ridiculopathy.com] could get away with such a tactic?
Re:Wow That sucks (Score:2)
The net is far too varied and there are far too many specialty sites which might only appeal to a few customers from each ISP (but a large population overall...
A PAyPal micropayment based subscription solution on a per site basis would be much better. An earlier poster pointed out the problem of an 'ISP content subscription committee'. It would be the same problem as seen on cable services (only the most universally popular content would be available for subscription) but substancially magnified since there is so much more content available on the net.
I could however, see a mechanism where a clearinghouse might act as a group buying club for subscription based content, where, perhaps members of this group buying club might access the web through the club's proxy servers which would manage subscription content delivery for members where the price of subscription to particular content would be a function of how many other members have also chosen to have a portion of their membership fees go to that particular content subscription. This aleviates the issues discussed, relating to the 'content subsscription committee' where the ISP would be responsible for selecting content to which it would subcribe.
My solution would probably require special content licensing much as the Tric AB solution, but it would take the ISP out of the picture, eliminating the bottleneck that would have created. Instead, embers of the group buying club would be alble to vote for the content to which the clubshould subscribe, on a monthly basis....
Just my 2 cents
--CTH
--
Beep Beep. (Score:2)
Thisis where Anti Trust becomes an issue. Since the line b/t Content owner and ISP is rather blurred (AOL-TW..) A nice case could be made that AOL was using it's rights to all of it's TW holdings to gain an unfair advantage.
That is, if something of this sort was tried. When you think about it, this would make ISP more like Cable/DSS providers. You pay a flat fee, they handle all the content. I hope all you pro-privatization freaks enjoy the Commercial Internet.
Go for it. (Score:2)
This will give the internet back to the small-time hobbyist websites.
I'm actually hoping that this becomes popular, AND that my ISP doesn't pay, of course.
Re:Cable TV (Score:4)
This has been another useless post from....
Fight it at the consumer level (Score:2)
Only if consumers sit back and take it. The fundamental infrastructure of the net allows for inexpensive access to anyone's content...
And while it makes sense to charge the highest volume content providers to account for the preponderance of bandwidth they consume, the day my ISP starts blocking all content that doesn't pay off is the day I get a new ISP, with a sharp letter to my former provider that I'm not interested in my internet becoming the next homgenized crap fast that is cable TV. Broadcast economics and technologies don't favor somebody that only gets hundreds of "viewers" per day, but the internet allows this, and I'm confident that someone will sell me the kind of internet service I want.
Another real possiblility is for related small content producers to band together into little networks. They could band together to pay fees for access or possibly there could be "premium" internet service - pay a surcharge of 5 or ten bucks a month, access your choice of networks of smaller content providers. The network splits the difference with the ISP, I get enhanced content from the providers I like without the stupidity of trying to figure out how to pay a nickel evry time I want to see the day's Net Comix.
Of course content on the internet is going to be dominated by big business. They have the resources to build the whiz-bang content and to buy bandwidth and access. And as far as IO can tell from the Billboard charts a lot of people really like the "art" they consume after it's been nicely pre-chewed by some fat-cat executive type. Hey, it's a free country. But the beauty of the internet is (or should be) that costs don't spiral out of control when you scale down the way costs in broadcast media do.
Re:Cable TV (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
If you don't get my sarcastic pessimism about profit and the need for everyone to be making ridiculous amounts of it (aka - GREED), then I can take you out back and show you exactly what I mean.
Re:Wow That sucks (Score:2)
A site like Disney might be able to get it, but I never paid for Disney as a premium channel. Eventually, my cable offered it as part of the extended package, which I got anyway for other reasons. There is no such thing as the "extended package" in Internet (yet.) This could be a forerunner, but it would only work for things like Disney that were popular and had unique content.
Bring the choice to the users (Score:2)
A simple click-through purchase system not requiring users to give up there credit card info (Which could still be stored only on the ISP, if they were brought in to help in that way).
This would be the best solution, the ISP has no way of knowing what the users want, only they know, and only those who want it should pay.
Think about it...
Re:I'd prefer micropayment (Score:2)
Proxies (Score:2)
Get a distributed proxy server software, so it routes round people's ISPs who do have access.
Media consolidation? (Score:2)
Could someone please explain to me what process is described by the term media consolidation? I mean, it sounds like a nice flippy 21st century information society term, but nevertheless I'd like to know what it means and what it's definition implies about where it's leading.
Re:Wow That sucks (Score:2)