roundtable: Re: bill to insure flat rate Internet email pricing (fwd)

roundtable: Re: bill to insure flat rate Internet email pricing (fwd)

Re: bill to insure flat rate Internet email pricing (fwd)

Scott Fritchie (fritchie@stolaf.edu)
Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:36:46 -0600 

Message-Id: <9402241636.AA21825@lars.acc.stolaf.edu>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: bill to insure flat rate Internet email pricing (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: Message of "Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:05:47 EST."
             <Pine.3.85.9402230129.C27661-0100000@essential> 
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:36:46 -0600
From: Scott Fritchie <fritchie@stolaf.edu>

>>>>> "jl" == James Love <love@essential.org> writes:

jl> The following is proposed language which would require telephone
jl> companies to provide a tariffed Internet access service.  An
jl> important feature of this is the requirement that the Internet
jl> service include a FLAT RATE service for electronic mail sent to
jl> and from non-commercial Internet discussion groups and lists.
jl> [...]
jl> The rationale for this proposal is to insure that the Internet
jl> will continue to provide opportunities for citizen to participate
jl> in democratic discourse on a wide range of topics (since flat rate
jl> email pricing is considered extremely important for Internet
jl> discussion groups).

I think this is a nifty idea, but I can see some problems with it.
I'm not, however, an attorney, legislator, or someone who is
accustomed to looking at & interpreting legal-ese, so I could be way
off-base.

jl> In a FINDINGS section, add The Congress finds that -- (1) The
jl> growth of non-commercial electronic mail discussion groups through
jl> the use of the Internet has greatly expanded democratic discourse
jl> on a wide range of matters.
jl> [...]

jl> On page 25, add a new section 
jl> SEC. 106.INTERNET ACCESS AND FLAT RATE PRICING OF EMAIL SERVICES
jl>      (a)  APPLICATION -- All telephone service providers are
jl> required to offer a reasonably priced tariffed service which
jl> provides Internet access.

I like this.  One question: is it due to the nature of this bill
(specifically addressing telephone companies) that "all telephone
service providers" would be required to offer Internet service?  I
would not like to see cable TV operators (and others) get into the
telephone/data business and not be required to provide the same
tariffed service.

jl> [...]
jl>      (c)  AVAILABILITY OF FLAT RATE EMAIL SERVICE --   The
jl> carrier shall offer a tariff for flat rate Internet email
jl> service, which must offer the ability to send and receive
jl> electronic mail to and from non-commercial Internet discussion
jl> groups and lists.  Nothing in this section shall preclude a
jl> carrier from offering tariffs which are not based upon flat
jl> [...]

The sick & twisted part of my UNIX systems administrator's brain 
tried to interpret this language literally and came up with the 
following evil scheme:

  We, ScottPhoneCo, will keep a list of all mailing lists on the
  Internet.  (A daunting task, but one we think can be done reasonably
  ok.)  Our email service will check the headers of each and every
  message passing through our system to or from our customers.  If it is
  going to or coming from a legit mailing list, we won't charge anything
  extra for it.  All other mail, including email sent directly to a
  fellow list subscriber in response to an earlier list-delivered
  message, we'll tack on an extra delivery fee.

Do I think keeping such a list is feasible?  Hell no!  Do I think
telcos would try?  If they were interested in trying to pick up extra
money for email services, yes.  It seems to me that they'd have to,
because they can't charge extra for the list stuff.  The
implementation details on all fronts would be, er, the stuff
nightmares are made of.  But the cynical part of my brain tells 
me some would try.

If such tariff language were in bill, I would recommend that it
recognize that discussion lists are important, but there isn't any
good way to discern between list- and non-list-related email ... so
make *all* email service subject to the same tariff.

Hm.  I just thought of something else.  I can forsee the service
providers wanting to charge extra for "big" email users: those who
subscribe to dozens of lists, lists which carry a lot of traffic, or
lists which carry fewer but "large" messages.  Depending on the type
of service they offer, that might require a lot of mass storage of 
one sort or another.

<Sigh> I suppose this could be an "incentive" for development services
which place the burden of storing email onto the customer's system(s).
:-)

$0.02 from...

-Scott
---
Scott Fritchie, UNIX Systems Manager                 Secretary:
Academic Computing Center, St. Olaf College          Twin Cities Free-Net
1510 St. Olaf Ave., Northfield, MN  55057            Organizing Committee
fritchie@stolaf.edu ... 507/646.3407                 (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty not safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[CNI Home Page]