🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22v674165ksjtf3vs5g92b58rojd5to4ka@4ax.com>,
 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:34:14 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> >Flat rate pricing simply makes no sense.
> 
> Welcome to the quest for the Holy Grail, in this case, the ultimate
> fair and profitable internet billing system.  


Thank you for an intelligent, informative, interesting, in-whatever 
message!   Goes in my "newsgroups classics" collection; the kind of post 
that helps keep me reading newsgroups.


(End of this response, but remainder of message appended below, just in 
case anyone missed it the first time around.)

=================================== 
> I once suggested that one bill by session, using the telephone network
> switch model.  Payment for local packets, that only went through one
> router, would be essentially free.  Packets that had to go through the
> cloud, would be billed by the number of routers required (i.e.
> traceroute hops).  I called it FUBAR (Fair User Billing And Routing)
> which wasn't very popular with my client(s).
> 
> Incidentally, such billing systems are often patented.  For example,
> here's one that bills by routing:
> <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6741685>
> 
> I like this one.  If your router gets overloaded, you simply charge
> the customers more.  Presumably, that will inspired them to reduce the
> overload.  Probably useful for delaying upgrades:
> <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5991378>
> 
> Here's a method that bills by session:
> <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6338046>
> While intended for cell phones, it can be adapted for internet
> billing.  Customers would be billed by "node" or server.  Wanna
> connect to my web server?  Fine, it will cost you $0.00001 per minute.
> Past implementations were called "micropayments" which are currently
> functional among some online games.
> 
> There was also a time, where some providers (i.e. Comcast) were using
> the Hollywood model.  Movie theaters charged by the user.  If you and
> your friends go to the movies, everyone pays.  In this case, you would
> pay by the number of computahs.  Software was scribbled to guess the
> number of machines hidden behind an NAT router, and telemarketers were
> dispatched to extort additional money from customers.  Predictably, it
> was a PR disaster and was instantly dropped.
> 
> Currently, we're heading for what I call the Smorgasbord model.  All
> you can eat and one rate.  However, if you eat like a pig, you get
> thrown out.
> 
> I'll keep my ideas to myself.  However, I would be interested in what
> others consider the ultimate fair and profitable internet billing
> system.  There are plenty that are more fair than flat rate.  There
> are also plenty that are more profitable than flat rate.  The trick is
> to invent one that is both.