3 ms·
>The small time owners will have no problem paying that. Who doesn't have $20 a month for their blog? Eat one less taco bell meal and you are good to go. If al
by sprout 16y ago
>The small time owners will have no problem paying that. Who doesn't have $20 a month for their blog? Eat one less taco bell meal and you are good to go.
If all you have is actual people you know reading your blog (and that's most people) there's no reason hosting should cost more than $5/month. For those people, 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the cost would be something that basically costs nothing, and is only priced because there needs to be a mechanism for assigning ownership.
I mean, where would all this money go exactly?
- vaksel 16y agothose people can be on the free .web extension...or the .nets/.orgs. The new pricing would only apply to .coms. as far as where money goes, infrastructure improvement.
- nanairo 16y agoIt also could go to subsidies the free (or cheap) extensions. For example: .com could cost 15$ instead of 7$, but .net could go from 7$ to 3$ or even less. Yes, you would end up with Internet ghettos, and "high-street" areas, but given it's only the extension, and a .com address is not really surrounded by other .com addresses, then it's not such a bad thing.