Email = Freemail? That's enought of that., page 1

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:51 AM

link

I'm a little late here but this is the first I heard of this:

Source
What's this controversy all about?

AOL has proposed the adoption of a system called CertifiedEmail, provided by Goodmail Systems. Under this pay-to-send system, affluent mass-emailers who are willing to pay AOL the equivalent of an "email tax" would get to bypass AOL's spam filters and get guaranteed delivery to the inboxes of AOL customers.

Everyone who can't afford to pay AOL's "email tax" - including charities, small businesses, civic organizations, and even families with mailing lists - will have no guarantee that their emails will be delivered. If other companies follow AOL in adopting pay-to-send systems, the Internet will become permanently divided into two classes of users - those who can afford to pay for guaranteed delivery and everyone else left behind with unreliable service.

The Internet is a revolutionary force for free speech, civic organizing, and economic innovation specifically because it is open and accessible to all Internet users. With a free and open Internet, small ideas can become big ideas overnight. AOL's move to introduce a pay-to-send system is a danger to this openness, and we urge them to reconsider.

Source

AOL's proposed pay-to-send system is the first step down the slippery slope toward dividing the Internet into two classes of users—those who get preferential treatment and those who are left behind.

AOL pretends nothing would change for senders who don't pay, but that's not reality. The moment AOL switches to a world where giant emailers pay for preferential treatment, AOL faces this internal choice: spend money to keep spam filters up-to-date so legitimate email isn't identified as spam, or make money by neglecting their spam filters and pushing more senders to pay for guaranteed delivery. Which do you think they'll choose?

Woah. So

does have uses then... and for more people than you'd expect.

Jak

chissler

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:09 AM

link

So what they are proposing there is those customers who do not pay will only have to wait and see if their emails make it to the appropriate destination?

The_Modulus

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:25 AM

link

I feel very naive at the moment. The thought of someone comming up with a way to charge people for sending emails had never even remotely crossed my mind.

In a world where nothing is free, the internet is in some ways a personal retreat from the innevitable culture of expenditure, a release from our resignation to having to pay for absolutely anything we need and want. I think this is one of the reasons I can sit on my computer for hours just wandering around the digital terrain of the web, experiencing and learning things at no cost. Not only do I resent the utter greed and malicious nature of this action by AOL, but I feel that my little peaceful corner of existence is now being trodden over with feet muddy from the world I seek some asylum from.

I dont think I understand what this is making me feel exactly, but I justst feel a little... personaly violated...

Youngblood_USA

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:27 PM

link

I just finished reading the article on this from Financial Times ( news.ft.com... ) They make it sound as though it is simply an optional thing and based towards the large businesses that send tons of email. To me, even the mere thought of this is outragious and this corperate giant needs to be stopped in their tracks with this BS! Anyways...Seems there's quite a few against this and many civil liberties groups. Here's the petition page to stop this for anyone interested.

www.dearaol.com...

Sauron

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:43 PM

link

I happen to have email stamps for sale 5 for a dollar US call me

the way I see it is I already pay for my emails through pricing with my internet provider, if they want more they can keep it and I will use MSN or ICQ or what ever else

alternateheaven

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:27 PM

link

/me makes sure his server is stocked with the necessary email daemons 'just incase'

Yeah, they could charge that for AOL users, but the rest of the net would gladly flip them the bird, not to mention lots of people would just vacate AOL (which would definatley increase their IQ)

ufia

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:15 PM

link

I'm not sure what the big deal is... ? The article says AOL will let spammers bypass the spam filter for a fee. Hotmail and alot of other thrashy email services already does that. Well, who cares? Anybody in his right mind wouldn't let unethical email providers touch his emails, who knows what they will be doing with your private info. Reselling your phone numbers and addresses? Stealing your credit card info? No thanks! Go with a trustworthy internet provider with a decent privacy policy.

Wouldn't this only affect AOL users. Just install your own frigging spam filter on your computer and spammers will pay to send emails that will never reach you. What the problem is? Are you mad about that situation because you are a spammer?

MCory1

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:57 AM

link

Yeah, I don't see the problem with this either. If you're wanting spam, then it's one more excuse to leave AOL, so that way companies don't have to pay to make sure you get it. I don't use AOL, but I don't care if it's a big company or a small one, I personally would rather not get any more junk mail. If I could charge a company to send me an advertisement I know I would. It would still get deleted without being read, but at least it wouldn't go into a spam box.

The only ones that I think this might suck for are (as JAK quoted in the original post) families who send out newsletters or non-profit organizations. I'm sure there's still a way--as most spam filters are set up now--to add an address to your "approved" list though. You want the newsletter your wierd cousin sends every week that gives details about people you see once or twice a year? Check your spam box and mark their address as "not spam."