Maybe this would be a better topic to address on its own, though.

I have capped internet access (i.e. if I use too much I get cut off) and it costs around US$ 0.50 per meg.

Actually, there’s a service called Goodmail that prioritizes subscriber e-mail and allows it to bypass spam filters for a small fee. A number of consumer groups and grassroots organizations opposed AOL and Yahoo adopting it for precisely the reason you cited–the high costs would drive small businesses to extinction.

I’m willing to live with spam, honestly. I delete it every time it shows up in my inbox and regularly teach people how to avoid phishing and pharming e-mails. The best defense is education and vigilance, but your mileage may vary.

I’ve been thinking of a per-email charge, with the first N emails free, and then increasing the charge-per-email logarithmically thereafter. If you’re a legitmate businessperson, you’ll just pass the costs on to your customers. If you’re a privite individual, we’ll set the free line low enough that it won’t catch most of you, and since the charges go up very slowly at first anyway, you’ll probably be fine. But if you’re in a very low margin business like spamming, you’ll be driven out of business. While I think this would work, and while I think it’s fair, does it run afoul of net neutrality? IMO, not if everyone, private citizens and businesses, rich and poor, pays the same rate. But you, or other commentors, might disagree.

Companies spent billions of dollars running fiber optic cable all over the country. Having the government step in to compete with them is just plain wrong. Technology is a declining cost industry. But the thing is that the costs never decline unless people are willing to first pay the high price. So if the government competes now and destroys the profitability of an entire industry, will companies be less willing to invest heavily on new technologies in the future for fear of government competition?