3 ms·

Depending on how this is set up, this would be a huge disadvantage to smaller websites, though. In order to make any money, you'd have to make contracts with ea

by 43920 8y ago

Depending on how this is set up, this would be a huge disadvantage to smaller websites, though. In order to make any money, you'd have to make contracts with each individual ISP, and if they decided they didn't like your content, they could prevent you from collecting any revenue, effectively shutting your site down. (In fact, a lot of them seem to want to move in this direction already with paid prioritization, although that doesn't have quite as much of an effect as blocking ad revenue does).

camgunz 8y ago
A few things: > this would be a huge disadvantage to smaller websites Smaller websites already make no money on the web. Nothing in my scheme prevents them from explicitly requesting money or whatever else. > you'd have to make contracts with each individual ISP I wouldn't let ISPs refuse to contract with content providers. They'd have to carry all content, and they'd have to distribute their profits according to whatever scheme we come up with. > a lot of them seem to want to move in this direction already with paid prioritization Totally agree, but I think this is deeply harmful. My hope would be that by recategorizing ISPs as "dumb pipes" all of these problems go away.
- 43920 8y ago
  > Smaller websites already make no money on the web. Nothing in my scheme prevents them from explicitly requesting money or whatever else. It's definitely difficult for small sites to make money off of ads (although there are some that have been able to do so), but I don't think this is the right solution for that, either. > I wouldn't let ISPs refuse to contract with content providers. They'd have to carry all content, and they'd have to distribute their profits according to whatever scheme we come up with. Even if the ISP is required to contract with you, just getting a contract with all of the ISP's is going to be a huge hurde. There's tons of providers in the US alone [0], and many of them will likely want a formal contract rather than offering a simple sign-up form. If you have visitors in other countries, it gets even harder, since now you have to worry about taxes, currency conversion, etc. Most likely, you'd end up with some kind of "micropayments-as-a-service" company that would do it all for you in exchange for taking a percentage, but that still feels like it shouldn't be necessary. > My hope would be that by recategorizing ISPs as "dumb pipes" all of these problems go away. I'm not sure it's possible to make ISP's "dumb" while also giving them control over how the money is distributed. In theory, you could make a really exact specification for how they have to count views, how they have to make deals, and how they have to distribute the money, but I'm guessing that there's always going to be loopholes that they can take advantage of. Particularly in the US, ISP's have a history of being monopolistic and engaging in shady practices - I doubt that's going to change once they're given more control over how websites operate. [0] https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

by 43920 8y ago

camgunz 8y ago

A few things: > this would be a huge disadvantage to smaller websites Smaller websites already make no money on the web. Nothing in my scheme prevents them from explicitly requesting money or whatever else. > you'd have to make contracts with each individual ISP I wouldn't let ISPs refuse to contract with content providers. They'd have to carry all content, and they'd have to distribute their profits according to whatever scheme we come up with. > a lot of them seem to want to move in this direction already with paid prioritization Totally agree, but I think this is deeply harmful. My hope would be that by recategorizing ISPs as "dumb pipes" all of these problems go away.

43920 8y ago
> Smaller websites already make no money on the web. Nothing in my scheme prevents them from explicitly requesting money or whatever else. It's definitely difficult for small sites to make money off of ads (although there are some that have been able to do so), but I don't think this is the right solution for that, either. > I wouldn't let ISPs refuse to contract with content providers. They'd have to carry all content, and they'd have to distribute their profits according to whatever scheme we come up with. Even if the ISP is required to contract with you, just getting a contract with all of the ISP's is going to be a huge hurde. There's tons of providers in the US alone [0], and many of them will likely want a formal contract rather than offering a simple sign-up form. If you have visitors in other countries, it gets even harder, since now you have to worry about taxes, currency conversion, etc. Most likely, you'd end up with some kind of "micropayments-as-a-service" company that would do it all for you in exchange for taking a percentage, but that still feels like it shouldn't be necessary. > My hope would be that by recategorizing ISPs as "dumb pipes" all of these problems go away. I'm not sure it's possible to make ISP's "dumb" while also giving them control over how the money is distributed. In theory, you could make a really exact specification for how they have to count views, how they have to make deals, and how they have to distribute the money, but I'm guessing that there's always going to be loopholes that they can take advantage of. Particularly in the US, ISP's have a history of being monopolistic and engaging in shady practices - I doubt that's going to change once they're given more control over how websites operate. [0] https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers https://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers