AOL Backs Off 'E-mail 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps, but there hasn't been an English example of that usage for a few hundred years, I'd imagine.

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...

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.

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.

Probably why it's in quotes.

Referencing it as a tax certainly isn't uncommon:

»news.google.com/news?hl= ··· =AOL+tax

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.

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.

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.

Let's get enough tar and feathers and bring back the good ancient days.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, those are some good points and have to say an oversight on my part.

Though judging from all the stuff I see in my inbox. Very, very little of it is from "legitimate" bulk mailers. Which leads me in around about way to "how" AOL was able to determine these bulk mailers as having such an impact when spam is so much more prolific. I doubt seriously AOL did an in-depth analysis of email headers an sorted it all out.

So I really have to wonder to the validity of AOLs annoyance with such mailers. And have to think this is nothing but a scheme to shore up a failing company.

The piece you're missing is how AOL's normal spam filters work. They catch a high percentage of legitimate bulk email. So anyone sending bulk email is likely to be caught in their filters and blocked. AOL had an authenticated sender system to deal with this problem, which they are removing and replacing with this.

What AOL is doing, in effect, is shifting the costs AOL is paying for maintaining the email system for their customers to the senders of the emails the customers are requesting.

One appropriate response for those producing those emails is to pass the costs back to the AOL members so they are aware that their ISP isn't providing normal email service.

quote:

---

So anyone sending bulk email is likely to be caught in their filters and blocked.

---

Exactly, so it's basically an extortion fee. Pay up, and you bypass our filters. Don't pay, and you get blocked.

You're really just engaged in Semantics.

quote:

---

"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."

---

In turn, being blocked.

As a mass mailer, if you pay AOL a "fee","tax", or "tariff", you get access to customer inboxes.

You don't pay, and you get blocked by their spam filters.

They are being forced to pay, or be blocked.

I started to use the word extortion in my post, but reconsidered. But that is exactly what it is. Your sent message is held hostage until you pay the extortion fee, or no one will ever see it.

Appears to me that someone at mighty AOL has been stung by the thought that its customers and some of it's peers think it is nothing but a greedy, soulless and uncaring corporation, allthough why it comes to this conclusion NOW after YEARS of complaints from its members and their deserting the AOL ship in droves because of AOL's inaction is a bit hard to fathom.

Of course, it's most likely that they are getting less arrogant as they see the exodus continue while nothing they try does anything to stop it. They had all those people who were willing to pay $24 a month for all those years and now, in typical monolithic corporation fashion, they RAISE that to $27. Can you spell C L U E L E S S?

Of course, they are the ones providing the $9.95 Netscape dial up (since they own Netscape) so, perhaps, they feel they have themselves covered.

Or, maybe someone just realized that they had gotten caught at another money grab by people like me who exposed it for what it was. And, yes, you wait. Spammers WILL pay for their messages to get through. After all, who is to say who the "legitimate" bulk mailers are?

You guessed it: Aol and it's contractor who, bottom line, have a financial interest in it and what is the mantra of the corporation? MORE! Money talks and corporate PR BS walks, pilgrim. You watch how fast AOL forgets after the hubbub dies down.

Um... three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.

Again, so far as I understand it, AOL is not changing their filters. They will continue to use the same spam filters as they always have. You cannot PROVE that a "legitimate" bulk mailer WILL get blocked IF they don't pay. They will have to run the same spam filtering gauntlet they always have. To me, your spin, or rather, your perspective, wording this situation as as "if you don't pay, you get blocked," I believe, is misleading and false.

Let me quote Snopes.com again:

On the last point, we can speak from experience as an organization that has long sent out weekly free mailings to a very large subscriber base (and our mailings are particularly susceptible to being filtered out as spam or fraud attempts, because much of what we write about are the very same hoaxes, scams, and frauds that are being circulated via e-mail). Many, many e-mail providers (not just AOL and Yahoo) have long had in place filters to trap or strip e-mail sent to large numbers of recipients or containing external web links and embedded images (because those features are hallmarks of spam and fraud). The best way for AOL and Yahoo subscribers to ensure that our mailings reach them is to be sure to designate our address in their accounts as an authorized e-mail sender, an option that will not be changing. ("As is the case now, mail arriving from addresses that users have added to their AOL address books will not be treated as spam.")

We have on occasion had problems with some e-mail providers (including AOL) mistakenly flagging our newsletters as spam and blocking them entirely; usually a single e-mail or phone call is sufficient to clear up the problem. Of all the Internet providers we've dealt with in this regard, AOL has by far been the most polite, responsive, and easy to deal with.

Look, from what I understand, AOL customers will still have the ability to configure their settings with white lists to avoid legitimate bulk mailings from being blocked. Until someone can provide a citation to show AOL intends on blocking the emails of any company that does not pay then phrasing AOL's service as "pay or be blocked" is misleading and false. AOL customers should see NO difference in what emails are blocked; the same filters will filter the same spam. They may, however, see emails from legitimate sources now make it through those filters when previously they did not.

An example... I fly Continental all the time since I use the Newark Airport. I am an Elite OnePass member. I get frequent emails from Continental that may or may not be considered by a spam filter as "spam." If Continental decided to pay AOL a fee to ensure their legitimate emails were not mistakenly flagged as spam, then that is Continentals business.

Oh... and before I get called an "AOL shill"... I do not have AOL, I do not work for AOL, and I do not have any vested interest in AOL. In fact, I thoroughly DISLIKE AOL. However, I dislike even more the blatant and misleading twist people keep putting on this story.

It may stop phishing emails all together, no large spam can get through this way. I think this could be a brilliant option before its all done.

You really don't get it, do you. It's NOT about blocking, it's not about spam, it's not about filtering. What it IS about is AOL UNILATERALLY deciding on which mail is 'more important than others'.

You have an inbox, and you have a spam inbox. The value of items in one of those mailboxes is higher than the value of the items in the other inbox. However, how is the decision made as to which one is valued more than the other. Under AOL's plan, the person who PAYS AOL decides what mail is more important.

So, is that how you think e-mail works? You get e-mail not based on your desires, but the desires of AOL or some faceless megacorp? I don't, and I suspect the vast majority of people don't either. We pay our ISP to accept mail for us. We often choose our e-mail system based on how good the spam filter is, size of mailbox, cost, etc.. WE (the people) make the decision as to what ends up in our inbox, not some megacorp looking to rip off everyone.

You keep saying "AOL doesn't intend to block emails". But only companies that PAY AOL are guaranteed to get in the 'good inbox'. But since it doesn't cost YOU, the end user, any money now does it, it's not wrong? Hmm.. lets find an analogy you can understand.

Ah, yes, think of it as a bus. The bus moves people from point A to point B. It doesn't discriminate against who gets on, or where they get off, it delivers people. That's how e-mail works.

If AOL had it's way, there would still be the bus, but it would be a DIFFERENT bus. On this bus, everyone can get on, and everyone can get off, but, if you're black, you have to sit in the BACK of the bus, since your not as important as the white person. If your POOR you have to sit in the back of the bus, while the RICH person sits in the front. AOL is in effect changing the BUS from being a transport of people from point A to point B, to being a two-tier transport, where some people are more important than other people, based upon their ability to pay. Sound a lot like SBC/Verizons plan? It is, its almost exactly the same thing).

The reason everyone is so pissed off, is AOL is going back and creating a 'seperate but equal' system based on the ability to pay. We've tried that in our country, and it didn't work. Corporations, of course, in the interest of maximimizing profits, work to bring back these discrimination's and slavery under the guise of 'quality'. But to do so, they corrupt the very internet that was created. The only solution is to protest, and break up the megacorps if they try and corrupt the internet with their greed.

You know G_Poobah, sometimes you have incredibly insightful things to say... and others times... this time included... well... nevermind.

If you've read any of my other posts, you would've read my thoughts on this:

"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."
...
"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."
...
"Oh... and before I get called an "AOL shill"... I do not have AOL, I do not work for AOL, and I do not have any vested interest in AOL. In fact, I thoroughly DISLIKE AOL. However, I dislike even more the blatant and misleading twist people keep putting on this story."

So, what makes you think I am defending AOL or the plan? My focus has been to stop people from spinning the issue. AOL does not plan on blocking emails from companies that don't pay because they don't pay, but people keep screaming that they will at the top of their lungs.

So, let me make it clear...

I DON'T LIKE THE AOL PLAN.

Versteh?