Say Goodbye to FREE EMail

[JCMach1]

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are gearing themselves up for a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay to have electronic messages delivered.

Considering the amount of traffic on the net, the financial rewards are obvious. But there are other issues at play. Today it may be companies that pay for the privilege of using e-mails but tomorrow it could well be individuals. And will the length of the message, its electronic "weight'' dictate how much has to be paid or will this be determined by the importance of the data being relayed? Who sets the price? If it is companies who are regulating the price then the temptation to increase will be difficult to resist. The general public may also baulk at paying for e-mails. Ultimately, cyberspace might not be a happy stamping ground....
http://gulfnews.com/opinion/editorial_opinion/nation/10017254.html

[JDPriestly]

1. You already pay a monthly fee for AOL. That's enough.

[In Truth We Trust]

2. I've already lost my freedom why not free email too. corpofascism sucks

[LittleClarkie]

3. In a way, it sounds like companies are saying "You WILL not block MY

emails as spam if I pay you to let them pass."

[Atman]

6. Do you know how many e-mails a spammer send out? Do the math...

In marketing, generally getting a 2% return is considered GREAT. In e-mail spam, the return is a tiny fraction of that. But, it is Law Of Large Numbers. Send out 4 million e-mails, and if only 1/5th of 1% bite, you can still make money. But you cannot make money that way if you have to pay 1/2¢ per message. Only a legitimate business could afford to do this, as it would have a way to recoup the charge via fees and other means. Therefore, the SPAM you speak of would virtually disappear. Scammer Spammers won't pay to play. For one thing, they'd need a legitimate business address, the whole nine yards. Online crooks won't be signing up for than any time soon.

Again, no need to get hysterical about this. It is not as onerous as it may sound at first, and it actually may prove to be a blessing. I get several hundred junk e-mails a day. I'd love to see that shit stop!

[Atman]

4. You're over reacting

First of all, this is a good thing. Why should businesses get to send us their crap for free? Legitimate businesses will not have a problem with the fee, as it assures them their message reaches us, and it still way cheaper than stamp. However, I would expect them to pass the fees on to us somehow, probably via an increase in service fees, if it is a company with whom you have an account, like a bank or utility.

As for private individuals having to pay...I would guess it is only a matter of time. But there are a lot of things to work out. I doubt it is coming all that soon. Relax. We have bigger problems right now!

[JCMach1]

12. it's a slippery slope...

besides just reporting a story anyway...

[vvera]

5. If your using AOL you deserve to be paying for your email! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. What a stupid idea.

The customer who is happy with an ISP who selectively delivers their mail to them is rare. As a business practice, targeting this demographic is... uh... problematic.

Even [e-mail] will look for a new ISP when she finds that the baby pictures that [e-mail] sent to her got sent to AOL's trash bin.

"You've lost mail!"

[napi21]

8. I watched the rerun of todays hearing on freedon on the internet

this evening. They had some really GREAT witnesses on 2 different panels. I didn't hear anything about paying for email, but stuff about some Cable & DSL providers letting certain companies pay extra to get selected wider band width. It sould harm the ability of any new startup companies to compete with the Googles, Yahoos and Microsofts of today.

It was a very good hearing and as usual, Pelosi was GREAT!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. This is for mass business email. What's the problem?

[mcscajun]

11. They'll never get Individuals to pay for each email. Not directly, anyway.

They'll jack up the overall price for service, and maybe charge extra for more mailbox storage (*which some ISPs do already*).

What's happening here is a Premium e-mail service for businesses ("...a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay...").

[mim]

13. Good and bad

I have mixed feelings about this. Charging per message is probably the only thing that will discourage spammers. It costs money to pare down a mailing list, and direct-mail (i.e. snailmail) marketers are willing to pay that price, because sending a catalog to absolutely everyone would cost even more. But spammers spammers don't have that incentive ; for the same money, they can spread their net as wide as possible and reach even more prospects. So women get ads for penis-enlargement pills.

But charging for e-mail is a good thing only if it applies only to bulk mailers. If it cost an individual as much to send an e-mail as to send a letter, that would put a chill on the communication that really matters.