electronic/online/internet commerce

[ramin]

Paul Bambury wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Ramin, Stewart, Robin & Dan for their thoughts on this matter.
> 
> 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?

okay, you've twisted my arm. i'll ask one of the guys to put up the
defintional
model and some other bits so those interested can have a look. mid-next
week?

> 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.

actually 2 things happen: you agree (no alternative unless you have ad
cruching
software) to receive advertising to your eyeballs as well.  This is just
like
TV and radio.

Business to Business barter in EC is really big because of the ease of 
brand sharing, asset sharing, channel sharing in the electronic sense;
and
the ease and speed of disengagement (see Microsoft ie4 conditions, etc).
No
money changes hands (although Microsoft should probably pay ISPs for the
extra tech support load the software will cause).

> 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
> regulation.

look at the w3c P3P intiatives: http://www.w3c.com i think. we are
likely
to get more involved in this project.
 
> Robin wrote
> 
> > 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.


well i will disagree with Robin a little here.  broadcasting is a form
of
telecommunications and has to be according to any definition.  What i
think
Robin may be saying is that the difference between broadcasting and
narrowcasting is amplified and regulators dont understand this well. 
The
reason they dont understand this well is because of other regulations
they
have in place (like a limited number of commercial free to air TV
licenses
which causes the problem with people having only 5 - okay maybe 30 with
PayTV - channels to choose from and kids "involuntarily being subject
to nasty stuff without parental control).  This is obviously different
to the web model and even WebTV to some extent where electronic controls
(also related to payment) mean it is harder for unintended broadcasts to
reach people.  We've been through this argument before but Internet
broadcasting and _hybrid_ broadcasting is very real.
-- 
ramin marzbani
www.consult pty limited
http://www.consultco.com.au

THE 4'TH WWW.CONSULT AUSTRALIAN ONLINE SURVEY IS HERE!
SHORTER THAN BEFORE!!
Have Your Say - if you live in Oz http://survey.hotlink.com.au

Looking for a Web Developer? Try http://web-developers.com