From an economic standpoint, pay per use may actually resolve some bandwidth issues, as it would encourage people to ration their internet usage. When a person pays a flat rate for a service or good, he keeps using that service or good until (per the law of diminishing marginal returns) it's just not worth it to him psychologically to do it anymore or something better comes along that he'd rather spend his time doing/buying - essentially to what I'll call his "full benefit". However, if one has to pay per unit, he or she keeps buying/utilizing units only until the point that the additional cost of the next unit exceeds the additional benefit of obtaining that unit (marginal cost > marginal benefit). Therefore, the person in question uses less of the good (theoretically) because that last little bit isn't utilized and frees it up for use by someone who values it more.
Consider a buffet vs. a pay-per-item lunch - if you get the buffet, you eat until you're stuffed. If you have to have to pay for each food item, even though you could stuff down one last hamburger, the benefit of satisfying that last little bit of remaining hunger doesn't outweigh the purchase price.
Maybe this has already been pointed out below, but this is far less grievous than an already grossly unconstitutional violation of due process, the worst being Asset Forfeiture Laws. Without even mention of a trial, authorities can seize whatever property you own as long as they can even marginally show that it might have aided in the Drug trade, a gross exploitation of an ancient Common Law precedent that property that had harmed someone could be seized before trial to aid in repaying the person harmed - i.e. a person gored by a neighbor's bull.
Here is an example of a woman driving through Louisana whose Lincoln Towncar was seized by envious Louisana State Troopers (because, of course, law enforcement agencies who perform the seizures are allowed to keep what they sieze - what kind of ridiculous incentive structure is that?):
http://perspicuity.net/MyEssays/PissedOff/tourist1 .html
Some other despicable examples and proposed reform:
http://reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml
Between this new tendency towards misguided "crime prevention," asset forfeiture laws, and the disgusting muck-raking of the media, there no longer remains any semblance of innocent until proven guilty in our society.
Just as in cases with the SEC, or as members of the Mafia (and those wishing to avoid the oppressive Prohibition on Drugs) like to do, all one has to do to avoid charges like this from sticking - as in the case of a predator doing any so-called grooming - is use the impersonal future subjunctive in speaking of sensitive subjects: "What if one were to, I don't know, knock over an armored car?" "What if one were to have in his possession a large amount of cocaine? What would the going rate be?" "What if someone were to meet up with you for some 'fun'?"
Charges will never stick. Even actual recordings of such conversations do not hold up in court.
Gandhi in fact never had any seminal discharge whatsoever after leaving his wife and kids to go on his moral crusade, save for once, in his sleep, which he was deeply disturbed about.
I have no real respect for the guy, he essentially birthed the professional political class.
I see both your points and I will concede them to you as long as spam is considered "stolen" storage/bandwidth. However, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Door to door salesmen I think can serve as a far better analogy, as they provide unsolicited sales pitches and similarly rob us of time (just as you might say we are "robbed" of the time it takes to delete spam, deal with it, etc.). I just think if we allow the government to take care of things like this we're allowing them to set a scary precedent - not to say they haven't already set scarier ones, but still, there's still a lot of freedom on the internet that the government is waiting to pounce on so it can expand its influence and set up more bureaucracies to regulate it. Furthermore, allowing the government to take control is simply less efficient, which I think is the most convincing argument for leaving the problem to be sorted out by the private sector. First, especially if we concede that spamming is going to happen regardless of whether it is illegal or not, private firms can aid citizens in protecting themselves to begin with, preventing such "theft" of space and time from occurring in the first place. This is comparable to encouraging people to beef up their home security systems and be more ready to protect their own lives and property in the event of an intruder, rather than simply depending on government to come in and prosecute after the damage has already been done. Secondly, if we allow the government to take over, everyone foots the bill rather than only those people at risk for spam - I personally don't want to be charged so the government can protect the servers of big business when I can just let SpamShark take care of my own inbox.
I actually think rulings like this is going to make the problem worse. It's like the war on drugs - when they make something like this illegal and prosecute people, which both knocks competitors out of the market and heightens the risk level for those that continue to do it, it drives up the value for those willing to assume the risk. This, in turn, creates more of an incentive for new people to enter into the market if the possibility for profits is higher. Furthermore, spammers remain extremely hard to prosecute given that most of their spam originates overseas and many use pirated accounts to mask their identity and remove their liability - something I'm sure we'll see a rise in now. However, had we just allowed private companies to perfect spam filters we'd be far better off now - it wouldn't have attracted new spammers into the market, at least. I know it's a bit difficult to think of legislation/prosecution as innefectual in matters such as this, but when you really evaluate the issue using economic reasoning we would've all been far better off had the government just stayed out of the issue altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
From an economic standpoint, pay per use may actually resolve some bandwidth issues, as it would encourage people to ration their internet usage. When a person pays a flat rate for a service or good, he keeps using that service or good until (per the law of diminishing marginal returns) it's just not worth it to him psychologically to do it anymore or something better comes along that he'd rather spend his time doing/buying - essentially to what I'll call his "full benefit". However, if one has to pay per unit, he or she keeps buying/utilizing units only until the point that the additional cost of the next unit exceeds the additional benefit of obtaining that unit (marginal cost > marginal benefit). Therefore, the person in question uses less of the good (theoretically) because that last little bit isn't utilized and frees it up for use by someone who values it more. Consider a buffet vs. a pay-per-item lunch - if you get the buffet, you eat until you're stuffed. If you have to have to pay for each food item, even though you could stuff down one last hamburger, the benefit of satisfying that last little bit of remaining hunger doesn't outweigh the purchase price.
Maybe this has already been pointed out below, but this is far less grievous than an already grossly unconstitutional violation of due process, the worst being Asset Forfeiture Laws. Without even mention of a trial, authorities can seize whatever property you own as long as they can even marginally show that it might have aided in the Drug trade, a gross exploitation of an ancient Common Law precedent that property that had harmed someone could be seized before trial to aid in repaying the person harmed - i.e. a person gored by a neighbor's bull. Here is an example of a woman driving through Louisana whose Lincoln Towncar was seized by envious Louisana State Troopers (because, of course, law enforcement agencies who perform the seizures are allowed to keep what they sieze - what kind of ridiculous incentive structure is that?): http://perspicuity.net/MyEssays/PissedOff/tourist1 .html
Some other despicable examples and proposed reform:
http://reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml
Between this new tendency towards misguided "crime prevention," asset forfeiture laws, and the disgusting muck-raking of the media, there no longer remains any semblance of innocent until proven guilty in our society.
Just as in cases with the SEC, or as members of the Mafia (and those wishing to avoid the oppressive Prohibition on Drugs) like to do, all one has to do to avoid charges like this from sticking - as in the case of a predator doing any so-called grooming - is use the impersonal future subjunctive in speaking of sensitive subjects: "What if one were to, I don't know, knock over an armored car?" "What if one were to have in his possession a large amount of cocaine? What would the going rate be?" "What if someone were to meet up with you for some 'fun'?" Charges will never stick. Even actual recordings of such conversations do not hold up in court.
Is it just me, or should have mdm42 posted this under the title "How to Disappear Completely"?
Gandhi in fact never had any seminal discharge whatsoever after leaving his wife and kids to go on his moral crusade, save for once, in his sleep, which he was deeply disturbed about.
I have no real respect for the guy, he essentially birthed the professional political class.
I see both your points and I will concede them to you as long as spam is considered "stolen" storage/bandwidth. However, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Door to door salesmen I think can serve as a far better analogy, as they provide unsolicited sales pitches and similarly rob us of time (just as you might say we are "robbed" of the time it takes to delete spam, deal with it, etc.). I just think if we allow the government to take care of things like this we're allowing them to set a scary precedent - not to say they haven't already set scarier ones, but still, there's still a lot of freedom on the internet that the government is waiting to pounce on so it can expand its influence and set up more bureaucracies to regulate it. Furthermore, allowing the government to take control is simply less efficient, which I think is the most convincing argument for leaving the problem to be sorted out by the private sector. First, especially if we concede that spamming is going to happen regardless of whether it is illegal or not, private firms can aid citizens in protecting themselves to begin with, preventing such "theft" of space and time from occurring in the first place. This is comparable to encouraging people to beef up their home security systems and be more ready to protect their own lives and property in the event of an intruder, rather than simply depending on government to come in and prosecute after the damage has already been done. Secondly, if we allow the government to take over, everyone foots the bill rather than only those people at risk for spam - I personally don't want to be charged so the government can protect the servers of big business when I can just let SpamShark take care of my own inbox.
I actually think rulings like this is going to make the problem worse. It's like the war on drugs - when they make something like this illegal and prosecute people, which both knocks competitors out of the market and heightens the risk level for those that continue to do it, it drives up the value for those willing to assume the risk. This, in turn, creates more of an incentive for new people to enter into the market if the possibility for profits is higher. Furthermore, spammers remain extremely hard to prosecute given that most of their spam originates overseas and many use pirated accounts to mask their identity and remove their liability - something I'm sure we'll see a rise in now. However, had we just allowed private companies to perfect spam filters we'd be far better off now - it wouldn't have attracted new spammers into the market, at least. I know it's a bit difficult to think of legislation/prosecution as innefectual in matters such as this, but when you really evaluate the issue using economic reasoning we would've all been far better off had the government just stayed out of the issue altogether.