Business Models for Content Aggregation
draft-hallambaker-iab-aggregation-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-05-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                    P. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft                                              May 12, 2019
Intended status: Informational
Expires: November 13, 2019

                Business Models for Content Aggregation
                  draft-hallambaker-iab-aggregation-00

Abstract

   This document is also available online at
   http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-iab-aggregation.html
   [1] .

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Hallam-Baker            Expires November 13, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               PHB Aggregation                    May 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Where the Web failed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  How users pay for content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Concentration and its Consequences  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  User experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  The wider context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  The Technology Gap  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Content Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Payments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Mathematical Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Management of private keys across devices . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Dare Container  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  Creator-to-consumer end-to-end Web security.  . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Deployment strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Shared Bookmarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Where the Web failed

   Many if not most technologies that came to define the era in which
   they were created owe a large part of their success to the failed
   expectations of the technologies that immediately preceded them.  The
   telegraph and canals demonstrated the potential, but radio and the
   railways defined their age.  The World Wide Web was fortunate to
   arrive at the exact moment that home trials of Interactive TV had
   shown it to be an expensive flop.

   Apart from the name, the only part of Interactive TV that was
   'interactive' was the ability to buy branded merchandise associated
   with a program.  Interactive TV did little more than add a 'purchase'
   button to the remote control.  The Web in contrast offered much more
   because any user of the Web could become a content provider.

   It is with no little irony therefore that thirty years later, the Web
   has largely become the thing it was meant to destroy and a large part
   of the reason we have come to this point is the lack of a 'purchase'
   button on the remote control.

1.1.  How users pay for content

   Producing high quality content is an expensive business.  The
   question therefore is not whether users will pay for content but
   rather how they will pay for content.  They can pay directly, they

Hallam-Baker            Expires November 13, 2019               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               PHB Aggregation                    May 2019

   can pay by giving their attention, they can pay by giving up
   information they own but they will pay one way or another.

   At the time the Web was begun, the dominant business model for
Show full document text