Arguments for microcent transactions include the fair allocation of costs to users, the deterrent to theft and fraud, the ease of creating a payment relationship, and the incentive of income to Web content providers.
Currently, most Web content providers charge a fixed fee to all users that access their system, regardless of the amount of traffic each user generates. Thus two users pay the same amount for access to an online newspaper, even if one user reads every single article every day of the week, and the other reads only one article a month. By charging for only what a user accesses, microcent transactions allow users to pay for exactly what they use.
When a Web item costs $0.0001, there is extremely little incentive for users to steal the item. Even if a first user purchased the item, and wants to pass the purchased copy on to a second user, it may be easier to purchase the original, virus-free, up-to-date copy from the original source.
Some users would be very wary of paying an unknown content provider $10 or $30 for access to a certain Web site. The user would be vulnerable to the content provider defaulting on his obligation in some way. Microcent transactions allow a pay-as-you-go structure that does not expose the user to significant financial risk.
Finally, if the content providers receive income from frequently-accessed content on the Web, then they have an incentive to provide quality content that will draw in users. Potentially, any user that can effectively filter the vast amount of information on the Web into well-defined lists could provide those lists to other users for a microcent charge.
Copyright © 1996 Patrick N. Brooks
All Rights Reserved