[IP] Charging For E-Mail
And there are several more good arguments against it as proposed.
Dave
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:52:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Charging For E-Mail
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Dave,
Just a few notes on the issues of "charging" for e-mail...
- As you point out, any fee structure is likely to start off
low and rise as attempts are made to maximize the profit center
on the part of ISPs.
- Once ISP e-mail charging schemes are in place, governments will likely
express interest in potential revenue to be derived from such sources.
The long-debunked rumor of the "e-mail tax" might well become a reality.
It has already been suggested in some quarters that the U.S. Postal
Service's new "Electronic Postmark" EPM/Authentidate system could
ultimately be a model in this regard.
- It appears likely that a primary initial use for e-mail charging schemes
would be to allow certain classes of bulk mailers to bypass ISP anti-spam
filters to directly reach the captive audience of those ISPs. If you've
got the bucks, you're classified as a "good" spammer and your wonderful
offers will reach all those "grateful" e-mail recipients without
interference from those pesky filter rules.
- E-mail charging schemes can be used as an excuse to further bind
customers tightly to their current ISPs. The "SPF" e-mail domain control
system already has this effect by discouraging the legitimate use of
alternate domains by users in many cases.
- Widely-deployed e-mail charging would likely require ISPs to attempt
extremely tight, centralized control over e-mail routing to try prevent
"unauthorized" (and uncharged) e-mail flows by users operating their own
MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents), non-escrowed e-mail encryption systems,
and/or other "unapproved" technologies. Such centralized and enforced ISP
control over e-mail would obviously have drastic potential negative
privacy and security impacts.
- The concept of widespread, enforced e-mail charging neglects to
acknowledge the reality that e-mail is fundamentally an end-to-end
Internet application that can be indistinguishable at the data level from
most other applications. The backlash to e-mail charging schemes would
likely give rise to vast distributed "underground" e-mail transport
systems, encrypted and even designed to masquerade as other types of
data. Even draconian attempts by ISPs to limit their subscribers' access
to alternate TCP/IP ports would be unlikely to stem the flood of such
alternate e-mail transport environments, that could even emulate
standard Web (HTTP) traffic. Illicit music file trading would likely
look like a drop in the bucket by comparison.
Bottom line: Trying to charge broadly for e-mail could well provide
a textbook definition of "Pandora's Box" brought to life.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@xxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org
Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet
Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/