Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:02:16 +0000
Thanks to Ramin, Stewart, Robin & Dan for their thoughts on this matter.
> Paul this is ceratinaly a very commendable attempt at a definition,
> but a bit too loose for my liking. We've spent more than A$100,000
> over the past year defining E-Commerce and all we have is a
> framework. The framework covers processes; scope; transactions; and
> players. Problem is that traditional commerce definition does not
> cover a broad range of new opportunities for wealth creation made
> possible through Internet (and non-Internet) technologies.
Like Dan I'm very interested in your framework. I had a look at your web
site (which I found extremely interesting) & found only hints. Is this
proprietry info? I understand that you are running a commercial
consultancy but does a general basis for using & agreeing on terms fall
into the category of proprietry of commercial-in-confidence information?
I take your point re the traditional definition of commerce not
describing new types of interactions taking place on the Internet. For
example when I subscribe to a news service such as C-NET or Wired, I
effectively trade or barter information about myself for a feed of news
information. No money is involved, this is information barter, but is it
commerce? Maybe it is. A sort of contract is involved. If the news
service undertakes not to sell my information to spammers or I opt out
of such a use and the news service does sell it & I get annoyed by spam,
is this not a breach of contract? I agree with many US netizens that
spamming & misuse of personal information in the internet requires
> I don't agree that broadcasting is telecommunications.
> Telecommunications involves a two-way, point-to-point, communication
> system. The Internet is point-to-point in general, although this can
> support applications which resemble broadcasting. Packets can be
> broadcast on networks and received by a router and fanned out to
> multiple sub-nets, so in this sense some aspects of Internet
> communications are arguably broadcasting - but normal mass media
> broadcasting, involving one-way, one-to-many, analogue or digital
> signals carried by radio-waves, on coaxial cable or fibre should
> never be confused with telecommunications.
Fair enough, but while intenet applications that resemble broadcasting
(such as web sites, push technology, spam, news services & so on) may be
technologically distinct from traditional broadcast radio & TV, is it
not a confusing definition for those not primarily concerned with
technology? The move of TV & radio into the net with an essentially
similar approach to existing TV & radio may make your distinction valid
but arcane. I agree with you re the democratic nature of point to point
communications but will the increasing adoption of one to many
communications on the internet generally erode the democratic nature of
> The problem with identifying on-line commerce and electronic commerce as equivalents lies in areas such as telephony based commerce, e.g as in
> phonebanking, telemarketing, call centres etc. These are electronic commerce applications and technologies but not on-line in the sense that they do not involve dialling up or being on-line to a PC or other computer.
> Internet commerce is a sub-category of electronic commerce in my book rather than a separate or equal category.
> On-line commerce is, nonetheless a useful term because it embraces and includes such things as interactive pay tv based applications, as well as your age old Ausinet and other on-line database, email and file transfer services delivered across proprietary networks.
I do agree that internet commerce is a sub-set of electronic commerce &
this was intended by my original posting, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I accept what you say re online commerce. Perhaps internet commerce &
online commerce are intersecting subsets of electronic commerce.
I'm not sure where this takes us, but it's all interesting stuff.