Coalition Assaults AOL's 'E-mail Tax'Coalition 50 strong speaks out, launches site ( old news - 06:41PM Tuesday Feb 28 2006) tags: prices · business · spam · mailA group of strange bedfellows fifty strong, including MoveOn.org, Gun Owners of America and the Association of Cancer Online Resources, have launched a new website attacking AOL's new "E-mail Tax." As we've explored, Yahoo & AOL have embraced Goodmail's CertifiedEmail, which charges mass-marketers a fee (usually only a fraction of a cent per e-mail) to reach customers. The idea, as you'd expect, has proven highly controversial among those who mass-mail, but groups like the EFF and Spamhaus have also attacked the plan, claiming it violates free speech and the "Spirit of the Internet."
Related:- AOL, Yahoo to Revamp Spam Attack
- AOL Backs Off 'E-mail Tax'
- Four Major ISPs To Use 'CertifiedEmail'
- Verizon Deploys 'Certified Email'
- The Goodmail Debate
- New AT&T Filters Eating Legit E-mail
- AT&T: 65,000 SMS Sent Per SECOND
- Cogeco Tells Us They're Working On Meter Problems...
|
 
SilenceGold
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Benton, AR | AOL asked for the taxes so why don't we return the favor.. SO why don't we go ahead and tax all those unwanted AOL cds that we get in the mail? | |
|  | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: AOL asked for the taxes so why don't we return the favor.. How about this - start a 'new' service for users who wish to have some restrictions on email. Don't try and add on a pay per use method to email that already exists.
This would make email 2 tiered, but would be a simpler solution. I.e. Corporate users, business, use a form of secured/certified mail and pay for it. The rest of us can add in filters. Just don't try to bill me for email after the fact as a bait and switch. | |
| | 
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by SilenceGold  :SO why don't we go ahead and tax all those unwanted AOL cds that we get in the mail? LOL
--
Spread Opera! The fast, sleek, and feature-rich browser! »opera.com | |
| | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home | I know this is a joke, but AOL already pays to send you those CD's, just like they want mass mailers to pay them for sending email... | |
| | 
aurgathor
join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by SilenceGold :SO why don't we go ahead and tax all those unwanted AOL cds that we get in the mail? USPS get paid for delivery, and it also cost some money to make them. Emails, on the other hand, cost virtually nothing if they are sent by the millions. The cost of material, work, and delivery is very close to zero. | |
| | |
SilenceGold
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Benton, AR
| Re: AOL asked for the taxes so why don't we return the favor.. no...my point is...
All regular emails are just like regular mail...except they weight nothing. AOL wants to charge those featherlight mass mailers so I am saying that we should tax those AOL which are snail mass mailers. There are really no differences in the costs that AOL would face to accept and deliver mass emails as much as if those were regular emails.
USPS can deliver 100k of 1 oz letters directly from a mass snail mailer but you save more because it's bulk mailing compared to 100k of people sending each other same weight mail. | |
| | | | | 
Guru
join:2005-12-01
Canada | WTF E-mail Tax?
Garbage... Total garbage... I wonder why AOL still exists. | |
| 
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | Wow Never thought I would see moveon.org and Gun owners of America in the same paragraph. 
--
010000010100110101000100 | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Wow yeah, EFF, moveon.org and Gun owners agreeing  | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| What....I actually agree with AOL? You can't say it's a free speech issue, the idea in no way limits what a person can say. It just keeps me from having to hear it. If AOL wants to cut down on unwanted spam by charging spammers to get their sh*t through, I say go for it. For that matter raise the rates.
My only concern is how they will classify the messages. If I send pictures to 5 family members, am I a bulk mailer? What exactly constitutes mass-marketing, and how will you define it today that spammers won't find a work around for tomorrow? I fear it will end up being similar to copyright protection....it does nothing for solving the problem, only makes it more difficult for legitimate use.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | 
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
| Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? Good Point,
But with the statement about each email would only cost a fraction of a cent, then my guess would be that it has to be a lot of emails for it to be considered bulk email. I am thinking somewhere in the 1000's of emails to be considered "bulk". This idea would definitely cut down on spam. I wish all email companies would implement this, as my yahoo and earthlink are full of spam all the time.
The only downside would be to companies who have legit mailing lists, now having to pay tax for sending legit emails. | |
| | | 
a
@optonline.net
| Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? So what about free webmail? This is only good for pay accounts. This idea by AOL is good since it is only a fraction of a cent, but for a spammer that can add up, but not for a home user. Even if it is 1/2 cent per email that is still resonable because most people don't send more than 200 emails per month. Hell my sent mail box has 280 emails total and I have had my gmail account for a year. I can't help, but wonder though if AOL's interests are genuine and not similar to telco greed where they just want a cut of the spammer's money for using their pipes. | |
| | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Actually, you CAN say it's a free speech issue. In fact, the Supreme court ruled very clearly in 1978, in BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, that the RIGHT TO LISTEN and the RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION are fundamental to free speech. If you take those rights away, then martin luther king could have been put in a 'designated area' for 'public safety', and the public would never have heard his speech. It's the same reason the government has such a hard time 'caging protesters' into 'designated area's' when they protest government action. You cannot give the right of free speech without also giving the right to listen to said speech.
Of course, as the listener, I'm not required to listen to the message, but I have the RIGHT to listen to the message. If AOL is blocking mail, without my specifically requesting it, then AOL is taking away my right to listen. If I specifically ask AOL to take away the spam, then there is no foul, but AOL unilaterally deciding that I can't listen to what the e-mail has to say is unconstitutional.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | |
a
@optonline.net
 from:
LiamJunket
| Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? How is AOL the government, it is a private company and can do whatever the hell it pleases. They are not even stopping your emails. | |
| | | 
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| AOL is not blocking your mail. If the company sending pays the fee then you get it. No different then the junk mail.
Would you accuse the USPS of blocking your mail by charging postage?
--
support the Hunley | |
| | | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? Absolutely I would accuse the USPS if they treated my mail differently depending on who sent it. Chase bank sends me a credit card bill, and they pay for the .30 cent stamp. My sister sends me a personal note, and she only paid for a .25 cent stamp. Exact same size letter, exact same starting point. Oh, look in my mailbox. I only FIND the chase credit card bill, because my sister didn't pay MORE to deliver exactly the same thing (a letter). In effect, AOL is denying me the right to listen to what my sister has to say in her letter, because she did not pay them extra. However, Chase, who paid them extra, gets to 'speak' to me.
Now, in my opinion, if you don't see that as a complete and total infringement on free speech then you really don't understand the concept of free speech at all. (hint: the first word in 'free speech' is ??, oh yes.. FREE). Not free as in 'no cost', but free as in 'no discrimination against the messenger'
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | | |
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? Oh boy. A free civics lesson. As useful as the Viagra spam I get everyday.
--
support the Hunley | |
| | | | | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY | Re: What....I actually agree with AOL? Ouch, I suspect you could use a bit more of both. | |
| | | | | 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | Hi, Every single email service proveder out there is treating email differently depending on who sent it and what is in it. This is not specific to AOL. | |
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| You're digging deep now.
This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. And the original free speech "right" was never intended to be bastardized as it has been into a "I can say anything, anytime, any place I want to" right.
You sending mail regardless of whether it is postal, email, courier, or pigeon is not a God given right protected by the US Constitution. If you want to send something, you have the right to secure the means to do so within the laws of the land and rules of the means you choose. If those rules require you to pay $100 per page or per kbps then that is what you will pay. If you don't like it, then find another method to get your "free speech" out. | |
| 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
upstate NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Aol Sucks Bullshit...
EFF is right again. If there is one leftist organization I agree with the majority of the time, it is EFF.
All this will do is lead to the death of the internet. Perhaps it won't die in the traditional sense of the word "death," but it will certainly change it if enough companies do shit like this.
-Tzale | |
| | 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| Re: Aol Sucks said by Tzale :Bullshit... EFF is right again. If there is one leftist organization I agree with the majority of the time, it is EFF. All this will do is lead to the death of the internet. Perhaps it won't die in the traditional sense of the word "death," but it will certainly change it if enough companies do shit like this. -Tzale I don't think it's all that big of a deal. All other companies have to do is not participate in the program. When enough of the AOL users complain that they aren't receiving their e-mails the practice will be abolished (or else people will start leaving in droves). Capitalism at work. | |
| | | | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Ummm...
What seems to be forgotten is that the E Mails will STILL GET THROUGH, allthough they will have to go through spam filters, as they do now. What companies will be paying for is their E Mails to BYPASS THE SPAM FILTERS and be delivered guaranteed.
This was all discussed ad nauseum in a previous thread with the same general shreiking and thrashing about.
As I said then, simply have your subscribers put your e mail on their allowed list in AOL mail controls. It will bypass the filters guaranteed because it is listed as allowed. It should be no big trick to add instructions for doing this when someone signs up to your site unless you're just plain lazy, or, stupid.
This will do NOTHING to stop garbage spam because the mail will get through, or, they can pay AOL to get it delivered GUARANTEED to your mailbox. Do you think the spammers wont pay for this? Get a clue. They will simply pass the cost on to the advertiser they are spamming for. It is nothing more than another money grab from AOL and yahoo and when others find out e mail is lined with gold, they will follow suit. | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| AOL Email Tax what about us small fries? We send approx 1000 emails a month to AOL users and am currently in their bulk mail white list.. Are we suppose to pony up all this cash to send our messages (100% user op-in, service related [forum, etc..] email) and if we don't make any money doing this site, whaere is this payment gonna come from anf if we can't or won't pay, what happens to our previously OK email.
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
| 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Last time I checked... AOL and Yahoo aren't Congress. So much for the "free speech" argument. | |
| |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Last time I checked... Last time I checked, McDonalds and Burger King weren't' Congress. So I guess they don't have to serve black people.
Where in the world did you get the idea that companies aren't held to the constitution? (and the constitution is the basis of the law). When did we give up the concept of 'equality' just because it's a corporation? When did discrimination become a legitimate business process?
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
| | | 
johnt
join:2002-09-13
Richmond, VA
clubs:
2 edits | Re: Last time I checked... Different argument - discrimination is prohibited by the 15th amendment.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I know that this mentions voting - but I do belive that this was used as the basis for most antidiscrimination cases.
And if you go into most places of business you will note that they reserve the RIGHT NOT to serve someone. | |
| |
johnt
join:2002-09-13
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| Yep, last time I checked (tonight just to make certain) The First Amendment to the US Constitution is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
As nongovernmental organizations, these companies can do as they wish. As a consumer with free choice, you can change providers as you wish. If you wish to receive spam, and your ISP blocks them - change ISPs.
In the USPS example cited above - this is not valid as companies that send mass amounts of mail get discounts (bulk mail) to send the same sized letter that an individual person sends. So their mail gets sent at a cheaper rate per piece - and it still gets there, just as the individual person that does not get this bulk mail discount.
»www.goodmailsystems.com/certifie···orks.php
And from reading how it works, it seems that if someone is willing to pay then the email is guaranteed to be delivered. If not, then it is sent through filters and traps as it would be today - and blocked if those filters are in place. | |
| | | Magic3
join:2005-11-30 | Re: Last time I checked... "If you wish to receive spam"
the next line should be - you should be taken out back and beaten  | |
| | | |
johnt
join:2002-09-13
Richmond, VA
clubs: | Re: Last time I checked... Yeah - I would have to agree. But I was just playing devil's advocate here. | |
| nowshining
join:2005-08-22
Bakersfield, CA | I WONDER actually its already happened, i get SPAM in my INBOX now...and also I get more PHISH emails in my bulk mail folder..
Makes me wonder if the phishing emails actually do come from the companies that they say they are but not.. hmmm..! | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: I WONDER Anyone wonder how this is going to cut spam? If AOL, and other ISPs can't stop spammers from getting through to your e-mail now, how is the imposition of a tax on all other e-mail going to help? Does anyone think the spammers and phishers are going to pony up traceable bucks for the privilege of doing what they do now for free? If AOL's mighty filters don't work now, how do they expect to correct that? Does anyone seriously believe that spammers and phishers won't find a way to piggy-back on legitimate e-mail, or spoof an originating address that has paid?
Like two-tiered internet service on Bell infrastructure, this is simply a rip-off of subscribers, who WILL be paying for lessor service, and wind-up subsidizing paid-for spam.
Complete, unadulterated horseshit! It's time we sent these thieving Telco's, Cableco's and greedy ISP/Portal cocksuckers a message: We're mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it anymore! The internet belongs to the people, not to corporate pirates. I pay for access, and I expect it to be the fastest, and cheapest it can be. If some business on the web wants to sell me content, well, they better make it available for a reasonable price, or I won't buy it. If some greedy jerk-off wants to jump up in the middle of my internet highway to exact an additional toll to move out of the way so I can continue along unfettered, he better be prepared to become road-kill. | |
| | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Sigh...
Companies would be paying FOR THEIR E MAILS TO BE DELIVERED TO YOUR BOX GUARANTEED, get it now? Other e mail will still get through, but will be sublect to normal spam filters.
AOL has excellent controls and you can set your e mail to only accept mail FROM ALLOWED SENDERS. If you subscribe to a sites letter, you put that site on your allowed list and it gets through while other paid spam doesn't, understand?
If you need to get a confirmation mail, you can either leave one screennames mail box open (which would allow you to get all the paid mail too), or, you can add the site to the allowed list untill you get the confirmation e mail.
This is not rocket science. It's simply a matter of knowing what you are shreiking about and how to use your mail controls and instructing your subscribers if you run a site. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| My Opinion My opinion is every email should be a opt-in but then again people will be crying the free speech blues. I think having people to opt-in will solve most if not all the email problems. Why should I get a email if I didn't ask for it.
AOL and Yahoo are giving 2 choices not 1. Mass emailer's can still send there email for free but still go through filters or they can pay just a fraction and there email gets sent through with no filters.
If email is free speech, then why do we have spam controls? Spam controls is contradicting the free speech argument. Blocking something I would say is denying free speech. I don't see anywhere that AOL or Yahoo is going to block anything.
Just my .02 cents | |
| lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24
Canada | "Spirit of the Internet." "Spirit of the Internet."???
Hippies smoking again? | |
| 
AD7BK
Premium
join:2000-03-23
Port Orchard, WA
·wavebroadband
·3Rivers Communicat..
| Email Tax, Aol, and Spam Just think of all the "vikings" getting the loot
Spam spam spam spam spammity spam wonderful spam.. Spammity spam lovely spaaam!!!!!!
I say abolish money all together go back to a barter system.... maybe just maybe it will work... hell it worked for our forefathers. Ever since the advent of paper to make money *well it isn't paper more like denim cotton mix* and metals like gold silver platinum uranium copper etc and plastic cards we can have our little pleasures of being :rich: but not the so rich whine well lets see maybe if it wasn't for the fact that there is a dire need for a Modern day Robin Hood to abolish some of these unfair taxation upon us citizens, but since no one has the ability to do that, we will be unjustly taxed by the rich if they took all the golf courses and put low income housing on that land you would not see a homeless problem any more, they own multi billion dollar companies yet they wont help you in your time of need. That is where these so called charities come in and then when there is not even that there is the government but they give you pennies... so what do you do? SPAM hey its free and who cares who gets hurt? As long as those suckers buy what you're selling you are making money.
This is the unfortunate state of the world. We are so dependant on the 3 evils, Money, Power, and Oil with Money being the root of it. The almighty dollar.. oh wait it isn't so almighty now in days... Well it is all tumbling down and guess who is gonna feel it? Us the lower class people. The Rich can take it. They have already invested their money in a stronger currency so that they are guaranteed to stay rich.
Now they want to get richer by shaking our pockets for money? It will never change, it will never stop, and it will never go down. The rich have it all and they are living it up.
What ever happened to the good ol' American values when we had our rights. They are gone and soon there will be nothing left.
I hope you are all ready for it, because it is coming quicker than you may think.
--
The following statement is true...
The preceding statement was false!!--George Carlin | |
| 
d_man60112
join:2004-06-09
Cortland, IL | I get it now.... AOL will turn around and charge the customers to stop getting these e-mails. Then AOL will charge spammers an extra premium to override these and they will go back to the customer for more money.... | |
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | AOL Users deserve AOL Anyone stupid enough to pay $26.00 for dial-up deserves to pay for email.:):p | |
| | | | |
|
|
·
Only problem: should have charged EVERY E-mail FROM AOL
