yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| So, how is this a tax?
Taxes are exercised by government, not AOL. Makes for a cute sound byte, but it dramatizes what amounts to a bad business decision by a company that has been making dubious decisions for a decade or more.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13 | Great. My carriers might start passing on this tax to me for writing friends at AOL, but AOL users will start hearing about viagra, rolexes, etc. from "redcross.org." |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Unsolicited Emails from non-profits just as bad as SPAM
If the non-profits are sending to a list of legitimate opt-in subscribers or contributors, I agree that the AOL policy could be construed as unfair and discriminatory. But if the non-profits are sending unsolicited emails to email lists they bought in order to drum up subscribers or blast their message out to anyone with a mailbox, then they are spammers and should be treated as such.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to yock
Re: So, how is this a tax?
tax ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tks)
n.
1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.
Dunno, 2&3 certainlycould apply. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Wait... I am confused...
If I recall correctly, which I may not, this "tax" AOL proposed was not for the simple delivery of email. It was rather a chance for companies, who were willing to pay, to automatically bypass spam filters and have their emails delivered directly into Inboxes.
The text "[AOL] has announced they will not charge legitimate non-profit & advocacy groups to e-mail their users" seems to imply that AOL will charge someone for the simple act of emailing an AOL member.
Did I miss something? I don't recall AOL ever saying they were going to charge people "to email their users." Let's get the facts straight, and stop the spin.
BTW - I don't like AOL's idea of allowing a company's emails to bypass a spam filter, just because they can afford it, but that is not what I am taking issue with here. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH | reply to Minister
Re: So, how is this a tax?
Perhaps, but there hasn't been an English example of that usage for a few hundred years, I'd imagine. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | The two-tier debate approach is referenced as a tariff, so why not? It is slightly hyperbolic, but I think it's accurate. Call it a fee, tax, tariff, whatever... |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| reply to phantom6294
Re: Wait... I am confused...
Personally, I think that the kick us some cash and we'll let you bypass our spam filters approach falls right in line with their higher prices for everyone! promotion. While some might view this as the inmates taking over the asylum, it would be consistent with a sure, we're losing customers by the millions - but look how much our revenue per customer is increasing! approach.  |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to Minister
Re: So, how is this a tax?
said by Minister  :The two-tier debate approach is referenced as a tariff, so why not? It is slightly hyperbolic, but I think it's accurate. Call it a fee, tax, tariff, whatever... But that's the crux of my argument. It seemed obvious to me that the word "tax" was chosen for it's propensity to incite a passionate response, rather than something more appropriate to a private business decision.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Probably why it's in quotes.
Referencing it as a tax certainly isn't uncommon:
»news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=AOL+tax |
|
jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| reply to phantom6294
Re: Wait... I am confused...
Actually, they are going to charge for email to reach their users.
A newsletter, for example, is something which will be 'filtered' out. Most people sign up for and want to receive the newsletters they have subscribed to.
Saying that they have decided to allow non-profits through sidesteps the issue. Users should not be denied email by their ISPs. The user has paid for mail services. To charge a user for mail services and then to deny those services unless the sender 'pays up' is just wrong.
My company sends out a small newsletter monthly to subscribers. Subscribers to the email version get the newsletter sooner and a better version (color) than the snail mail version. Of course, AOL users will not receive the newsletter, even though they want to. My company will certainly not pay AOL's 'tax'.
It amounts to a breach of contract by the ISP when they sell a service, then deny full use of the service. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Respectfully, can you provide a citation that clearly states that AOL will charge for the SIMPLE DELIVERY of email? Or better, can you provide a citation stating people/companies NOT paying the tax will have their email indiscriminately blocked?
Everything I have read states the AOL's proposal allows a mechanism for companies to pay to have their emails bypass spam/phishing/etc filters.
Again, I don't like the idea... but I also don't like the idea of people spreading false or deceptive information. All I am trying to do is separate the facts from the spin. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| reply to phantom6294
Let me give an example of the BLATANT and MISLEADING spin.
Example: BBR News Article
"The new system forces commercial mailers to pay a fraction of a cent to Goodmail in order to reach each AOL subscriber." (emphasis mine)
As far as I can tell, the system DOES NOT FORCE anyone to pay in order for emails to reach inboxes. If you don't want to pay, the don't. Nothing changes. Your email still goes through the same filters it always has.
From Snopes.com:
"E-mail senders who opt not to pay the surcharge will not be prevented from sending messages to AOL and Yahoo subscribers. Their messages will simply continue to pass through the same spam filters both AOL and Yahoo have had in place for years."
I await someone to provide PROOF that anyone not paying will have their email INDISCRIMINATELY blocked. |
|
SilenceGold
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Benton, AR
1 edit | Just like the good old days..
Let's get enough tar and feathers and bring back the good ancient days. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| It'll Work -- For a Day
It makes absolutely no sense to even try this method. First, all it'll stop is legit mail. Spammers have vast networks with so many IP addresses that they can pretty much send one message to one AOL address with one IP address. Use a crafty base64 or gzip MIME encapsulation and AOL won't be the wiser.
This isn't about stopping spam, it's about increasing AOL's bottom line using its best asset - 20 million subscribers who are not too technically savvy and are not unhappy about it either.
If it were a concern about spam, both Yahoo and AOL should jump aboard SPF and the rest of the world will follow. Instead, they're looking to profit from the problem and not necessarily fix it.
The good news is, there's plenty of other places that would be happy to take on the business of providing email - whether free or in conjunction with other ISP services. |
|
tirebiter
join:2002-02-16
Champaign, IL
·Comcast
| AOL "filters"
Actually there is less to this whole thing than it would seem. AOL has promised to still work with legitimate mailers (newsletters, e-commerce companies, etc.) to allow e-mails to reach subscribers for free. This new system basically ensures that the paying mailers e-mail can be viewed with graphics intact and with clickable links. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL
| reply to yock
Re: So, how is this a tax?
I really think it's a moot point trying split hairs over calling it a tax, tariff or fee. Granted "tax" was probably chosen for inflammatory reasons. But lets not let this get tangled up in syntax because there is an underlying issue here.
If all the rest of the ISPs were to follow this move it lends a sort of "credibility" to spammers that is the last thing the ISPs should be doing. It lends them that credibility because the ISP is saying you are a legitimate business and should be paying a "business" type fee, tax, etc for your activities.
Sure from a business point of view it gives ISPs another source of revenue but IMO in the end we all will be at the minimum more annoyed by spam.
As for those who do the mass/bulk mailings, they could care less. That cost would simply be passed off to those who are paying them to spam us all. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Stumbles, I see one major flaw in your reasoning. I would venture to guess that a large bulk of the spam email out there is sent from "anonymous" sources. Basically, most of the spam seems to have faked headers. The reason for this is because the spammers don't want the spam traced back to them. Even tracing the emails back to IP addresses is often fruitless because the major spammers bounce from one dial-up account to the next.
So, in short, if spammers are using forged headers and dial-up (or overseas) accounts to spew spam... they more than likely ARE NOT going to be contacting Goodmail to identify themselves and pay money to have their spam go through unfiltered. I would suspect Goodmail's program requires identification of what servers/IPs a companies email will be coming from.
I seriously doubt this program would cause the amount of spam in our inboxes to increase... but, that doesn't mean I like the idea either. |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL
1 edit | reply to yock
Look how sneaky these Top fortune companies are trying to be. There not going to end up anywhere and end up bankrupted in the future. |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA
| reply to tirebiter
Re: AOL "filters"
If AOL had an impeccable record of delivering email to AOL customers, I'd say Go For It. However, AOL is absolutely the last ISP who should be breaking this ground. Their casual attitude toward delivering other people's email suggest they should step away from this. They have much to be humble about. |
|
