[extropy-chat] Email Postage

[Adrian Tymes]

The problem is, this is being done by companies that are large
enough that other parts of them can carry the company through
even if the email postage itself totally tanks - and thus give
the appearance that email postage "works", in that it fails to
make a profitable business unprofitble by itself.

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:

> This is an easy debate to solve. Start a company that charges for
> priority
> processing of email and guarantee of receipt. Then put the methods in
> place
> for people to send and receive secure priority email. You can require
> people
> to "sign" for the message as you would a package. Have it as a
> subscription
> service. If the idea is feasible, it will take off. If not, it will
> sink. It
> really shouldn't be too hard for someone to set up.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com>
> To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Email Postage
> 
> 
> > To me, it's not about spam, though one of the side effects might be
> a
> > reduction in unsolicited emails. I think it's about putting a
> structure
> > in place to allow the market to decide the value of a kilobyte of
> > email. Right now, the market is telling us the value of an email is
> no
> > more or less than any other set of packets that passes through your
> > ISP. Is this really accurate? Sometimes just one email sent,
> delivered,
> > and responded to by a client is worth far more to me than anything
> else
> > I do on the net that month.  I can envision a situation where I
> would
> > want that email to be given special consideration.
> >
> > That said, I don't believe charging for individual emails is the
> right
> > way to do it at the moment. Instead, a better system would be kind
> of
> > like the US cellular market -- a flat monthly fee with some number
> of
> > minutes per month. You already pay an ISP for home/office access.
> Just
> > tack on a provision to the contract that allows a set number of KB
> of
> > email per month, overages apply.
> >
> > If the number of KB allowed is not set too high, I tend to think
> this
> > system will reduce low-content email from serial spammers, cut down
> on
> > low-content forwards from friends and family, cut down on 'me too'
> > posts and spontaneous irrelevant threads on email lists, and even
> > improve the quality of unsolicited advertisements you receive,
> targeted
> > to you and for higher quality products. I also think this system
> will
> > encourage thoughtful people who don't normally send a lot of email
> to
> > write and send more. This because they have pre-payed for the right
> to
> > send a certain amount of email, they are more likely to find ways
> to
> > use it.
> >
> > In the end, these pressures will lead to a net improvement in email
> > quality, with little to no chilling effect on important,
> high-quality,
> > high-content emails. Since I think this is true, it is my position
> > until further notice.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > It is a terrible idea.  We have a medium that allows for the free
> > exchange of a lot of information between people and computational
> > elements.  The suits would like nothing better but to raise
> mega-$$$
> > on the communication flowing across the Net.  If they can do it
> under
> > the guise of protecting us then so much the better.  But the result
> > will be a more controlled and far less free and ubiquitous
> > communication network.  This also would please many political as
> well
> > as corporate parties and many established powers who worry the Net
> is
> > outside their control and a potential threat.   Please be very
> > careful not to give control over content up without a lot of
> thought
> > and a long fight for every bit of freedom the open Net provides.
> > This really is not about spam.  A Mind is a terrible thing to
> control
> > and throttle.   Yeah, the Net today is less than a drooling idiot.
> > But the potential is vast.  Don't throw it away just to not have to
> > filter spam.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>