Re: Swedish Websites

From: Brandi Jasmine <bj_at_brandijasmine.com>
Date: Mon 06 Aug 2001 11:42:00 -0500

DENNIS VALDES <dvaldes_at_inquirer.com.ph> WROTE:

>Perhaps we can start a discussion on whether this revenue
>model might work for US websites or not.

I've been in arguments about this on writer and content
discussion groups and I say the TRIC idea will fly in
North America like a lead turkey.

First off, in Sweden and in the rest of Europe and the
UK, callers pay per-minute fees for local access. The
ISP model there is drastically different from here. ISPs
make more money the longer the user is online - they
have a motive to want to pay for access to content.

Second, the real TRIC (pun intended) here is that in
Sweden they have already locked up the content market
- by signing a grand total of 17 content providers. In
the English-speaking world this concept would never fly.

Then there is the little ISP known as AOL. They will
never pay for content - why should they? They CHARGE
content providers already - for access to their
proprietary interface (AOL KEYWORD: MONOPOLY). Being as
they own CNN, Time-Warner, and a raft of other content,
they can simply direct their users to their own content
- which they'd prefer to do anyway. You go ahead and
block access to AOL unless they pay you, but guess what
they can do? Once you block them, they can put up a
"pre-block" - because they are closer to the end user.
So they intercept the user, and feed them a screen that
says "This TRIC site is blocked because the management
of the site is attempting to extort payment from AOL.
But that's no problem, because we have these three sites
with similar content for you to pick from ..." ... you'd
be handing them all your AOL traffic (50% in places) ...
on a silver platter.

---

Brandi Jasmine - Writer, Photographer, Illustrator
www.brandijasmine.com - www.astrology.ca -
www.twostar.com



Received on Mon Aug 06 2001 - 11:42:00 CDT