[11817] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Mr. Green Card makes the Times
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu Apr 21 04:03:52 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: lisa@access.digex.net (Lisa Losito)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 23:33:12 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: koreth@hyperion.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9404201633.A20669-0100000@access1.digex.net> from "Lisa Losito" at Apr 20, 94 04:30:23 pm
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 1994, Steven Grimm wrote:
>
> > What would happen if a bunch of site owners got together and billed that
> > law firm for the disk space and bandwidth/phone time eaten by the ad?
> > Getting a few thousand bills for two cents each might dissuade them from
> > trying it again.
>
> If they insist on suing indirect.com, then maybe a bunch of networks
> should get together until the combined bill is more than than the
> $250,000 they want. Maybe indirect should give them all their
> email...if they want to spend time reading 30,000+ hate mail messages for
> 5 real leads, let 'em.
>
> I was pretty angry that the depiction in the Times article was that
> everyone objected to the commerical speech, when it was more a time and
> manner objection. After all, in the end do we care if its XYZ widgets or
> if its some guy's ramblings about the apocalypse? 5,000+ of anything is
> wasteful and irritating, and a misuse of Usenet.
>
> If stuff like this keeps up, I guess Canter and Seigel haven't figured
> out that sites can choose not to carry unmoderated newsgroups or Usenet at
> all, and cut off their "wonder market." I hate to see yet more ammunition
> about how this stuff needs to be regulated to protect "the interests
> of society."
>
> and they look so damn smug in the picture too. Like they're the first
> people to think about commercializing the Internet. ;)
This problem can be dealt with easily. Cripes, can't people see a
commercial way out of this mess?
Network providers simply add a clause that damage done to the system as a
consequence of their actions is the responsibility of the customer.
Funny that MCS has had one of those for, oh, something like 4-5 years now?
Now Indirect gets a problem (crashed disk, etc) when the consequences of
the Spamming come home to roost, but C&S get a HUGE BILL. They won't pull
<that> one again -- the cost per positive response is too damn high!
If the cost per positive response is more than their fee (ie: more than
any significant part of $100) then that'll be that.
It is in the interest of the providers to put this kind of clause in their
contracts, because who (as a provider) wants to be spammed and have their
system blasted for days with the hatemail?
Society and commerce team up once again to provide an effective solution.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
Fan Friendly Internet Here | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net
