AOL to charge for e-mails
Discussion
Anyone heard more on the story that Yahoo and AOL are to charge for e-mails? Came to me from Vunet. Begins:
Ultimately the honeymoon is over. The days of free web pages and open
access for all are coming to an end. In its place we can see a number
of alternatives.
One version is the internet as a "you get what you pay for" service.
This model would see a variety of business channels that offer
different service speeds and quality, all available for different
prices.
If you want a fast response on your news site you pay for it. There'll
still be the general internet, slow and riddled with viruses and bugs,
for those who can't or won't pay. It's sort of like CB radio compared
to a modern phone line.
Another version is on the same principles as open access being built
into a next-generation internet, one with rewritten protocols that
protect users and guarantee free information for all.
The moves by AOL and Yahoo to take the first road are, unfortunately,
just the start. For too long business has been held back from making a
profit out of charging for the internet and a lot of communications
companies are getting ready to carve themselves a slice of this fat
old bird.
If that means the end user gets stung and information is no longer
free then so be it. These companies have shareholders to pay.
But these moves can be beaten. The services will work only if people
are prepared to pay for them. Just like punters stayed away from the
original walled-garden MSN in droves and forced Microsoft to embrace
the real, open internet, AOL and Yahoo's profiteering can be beaten.
We really hope that the internet, the most important invention since
the printing press, doesn't get hamstrung this way. We've only just
begun to tap its potential and to block it now would be killing the
goose that lays the golden eggs. We know which side we're on.
Ultimately the honeymoon is over. The days of free web pages and open
access for all are coming to an end. In its place we can see a number
of alternatives.
One version is the internet as a "you get what you pay for" service.
This model would see a variety of business channels that offer
different service speeds and quality, all available for different
prices.
If you want a fast response on your news site you pay for it. There'll
still be the general internet, slow and riddled with viruses and bugs,
for those who can't or won't pay. It's sort of like CB radio compared
to a modern phone line.
Another version is on the same principles as open access being built
into a next-generation internet, one with rewritten protocols that
protect users and guarantee free information for all.
The moves by AOL and Yahoo to take the first road are, unfortunately,
just the start. For too long business has been held back from making a
profit out of charging for the internet and a lot of communications
companies are getting ready to carve themselves a slice of this fat
old bird.
If that means the end user gets stung and information is no longer
free then so be it. These companies have shareholders to pay.
But these moves can be beaten. The services will work only if people
are prepared to pay for them. Just like punters stayed away from the
original walled-garden MSN in droves and forced Microsoft to embrace
the real, open internet, AOL and Yahoo's profiteering can be beaten.
We really hope that the internet, the most important invention since
the printing press, doesn't get hamstrung this way. We've only just
begun to tap its potential and to block it now would be killing the
goose that lays the golden eggs. We know which side we're on.
neil_cardiff said:There is that, and it would be a definite benefit. However, how would the charging mechanism work? Add that to the fact that everyone is already used to free e-mail and I can see everyone just jumping ship if AOL/Yahoo introduce it.
Think about it though, if everyone was charged per email (tiny charge obviously), Spam would stop overnight.
It does make sense in a business environment.
Neil
BliarOut said:
Think about it though, if everyone was charged per email (tiny charge obviously), Spam would stop overnight.
It does make sense in a business environment.
Neil
In a personal level, it would never get off the ground - and if you think about it, in a business environment you'd never (or at least shoudn't be) using AOL/Yahoo.
I didn't say I knew how to charge for it, and to be honest it'd be difficult to ratify the standard - there'd always be a way around it but the idea is sound enough for me.
I'm interested to see how the government reacts to this, as IIRC businesses should be paying VAT on emails sent - but how the government would do this I'm buggered if I know - but the idea is the same.
Neil
I wasn't being critical there, I could just see the obvious problem. I'm almost certain some businesses would pay a small amount per e-mail to eliminate spam, but how it could be implemented would be a huge challenge.
On a personal level, I'm too used to free e-mail. I would just jump ship and use another e-mail address if my current provider decided to charge.
On a personal level, I'm too used to free e-mail. I would just jump ship and use another e-mail address if my current provider decided to charge.
neil_cardiff said:
Think about it though, if everyone was charged per email (tiny charge obviously), Spam would stop overnight.
It does make sense in a business environment.
Neil
Really?? because at 20 odd p a message I stil get UCE coming through my letter box at home. If they still make more than they spend by people buying their services/products it won't stop.
malman said:
Think about it though, if everyone was charged per email (tiny charge obviously), Spam would stop overnight.
It does make sense in a business environment.
Neil
Really?? because at 20 odd p a message I stil get UCE coming through my letter box at home
In English?
malman said:
If they still make more than they spend by people buying their services/products it won't stop.
True, but then if you take that 1 in 3 (IIRC) emails are either spam or virus laden, it'd certainly reduce the load by a huge margin.
>> Edited by neil_cardiff on Wednesday 8th February 12:06
Are the government still looking at "bit tax"? Be funny if they ever got that one through. Customs and excise breaking down your door at home because you had an untaxed home network or searching your business premises looking for the hidden networks you're putting most of your data on instead of the taxed one you registered.
malman said:
Are the government still looking at "bit tax"? Be funny if they ever got that one through. Customs and excise breaking down your door at home because you had an untaxed home network or searching your business premises looking for the hidden networks you're putting most of your data on instead of the taxed one you registered.
They were, and still are, but with the huge proliferation of IT install around at home, it'd never happen. Plus, can you imagine trying to explain to IR why you've just knocked up a test environment on Virtual PC in order to test mass rollouts of software. Nope, they'd die of confusion. So no, it'd never happen - least not in my lifetime!!!!
You have all firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick (in common with many of the "shoot first, think later" Slashdot crowd). AOL are *not* going to universally charge to send emails to individual AOL subscribers. It will not cost you anything to send emails to mates on AOL.
What they *are* going to do is charge bulk emailers money to send emails to large numbers of AOL subscribers. IOW, they're going to charge spammers to spam their customers. As they have actually stated, emails from bulk emailers who have paid the money will bypass their spam filters.
This is, of course, profoundly evil and the sooner AOL goes out of business, the better.
What they *are* going to do is charge bulk emailers money to send emails to large numbers of AOL subscribers. IOW, they're going to charge spammers to spam their customers. As they have actually stated, emails from bulk emailers who have paid the money will bypass their spam filters.
This is, of course, profoundly evil and the sooner AOL goes out of business, the better.
Actually the article is much broader than just AOL and pay per email plans (whatever they may be). This sums it up:
We already have numerous sites (not just pron ones) that one has to pay for to view the content - even so - forecasting a paradigm shift in the way the entire internet is constructed seems to be delusional in the extreme.
Now I'll take myself away to consider the fact that I used the phrase "paradigm shift". Oops, used it twice now.
VuNet said:
Ultimately the honeymoon is over. The days of free web pages and open
access for all are coming to an end. In its place we can see a number
of alternatives.
We already have numerous sites (not just pron ones) that one has to pay for to view the content - even so - forecasting a paradigm shift in the way the entire internet is constructed seems to be delusional in the extreme.
Now I'll take myself away to consider the fact that I used the phrase "paradigm shift". Oops, used it twice now.
zumbruk said:
You have all firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick (in common with many of the "shoot first, think later" Slashdot crowd). AOL are *not* going to universally charge to send emails to individual AOL subscribers. It will not cost you anything to send emails to mates on AOL.
What they *are* going to do is charge bulk emailers money to send emails to large numbers of AOL subscribers. IOW, they're going to charge spammers to spam their customers. As they have actually stated, emails from bulk emailers who have paid the money will bypass their spam filters.
This is, of course, profoundly evil and the sooner AOL goes out of business, the better.
More on this here. Begins:
>>
>Paul Joseph Watson/PrisonPlanet.com | February 6 2006
Several developments that are coming to the fore indicate a
noticeable advance towards a government regulated, taxed and
controlled system that spells doomsday for the Internet as we know it.
The first steps in a move to charge for every e mail sent have
already been taken. Under the pretext of eliminating spam, Bill Gates
and other industry chieftains have proposed Internet users buy credit
stamps which denote how many e mails they will be able to send. This
of course is the death knell for political newsletters and mailing lists.
The New York Times reports that "America Online and Yahoo, two of the
world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start
using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from
companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them
delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have
agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely."
The end game is a system similar to China, whereby no websites even
mildly critical of the government will be authorized.
The Pentagon admitted that they would engage in psychological warfare
and cyber attacks on 'enemy' Internet websites in an attempt to shut
them down. The fact that the NSA surveillance program spied on 5,000
Americans tells us that the enemy is the alternative media and that
it will be targeted for elimination. Court cases are pending after
the Bush administration demanded the Google search terms of American citizens.
The first wave will simply attempt to price people out of using the
conventional Internet and force people over to Internet 2, a state
regulated hub where permission will need to be obtained directly from
an FCC or government bureau to set up a website.
The original Internet will then be turned into a mass surveillance
database and marketing tool. The Nation magazine reported last week,
"Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
developing strategies that would track and store information on our
every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing
system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.
According to white papers now being circulated in the cable,
telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest
pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major
advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these
providers would have first priority on our computer and television
screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer
communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."
We see a move to demonize the Internet and tar its reputation. AOL is
running ads equating Internet users with terrorists. In the next few
years we may see a staged Internet shutdown which is blamed on cyber
terrorists.
For the aspiring dictator, the Internet is a dangerous tool that has
been seized by the enemy. We have come a long way since 1969, when
the ARPANET was created solely for US government use. The Internet is
freedom's best friend and the bane of control freaks. Its eradication
is one of the short term goals of those that seek to centralize power
and subjugate the world under a global surveillance panopticon prison.
And you believe that? Doesn't the noise from your tinfoil hat distract you?
A slightly less bonkers take on the issue; www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11191805/
>> Edited by zumbruk on Wednesday 8th February 16:25
A slightly less bonkers take on the issue; www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11191805/
>> Edited by zumbruk on Wednesday 8th February 16:25
zumbruk said:
And you believe that? Doesn't the noise from your tinfoil hat distract you?
A slightly less bonkers take on the issue; www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11191805/
>> Edited by zumbruk on Wednesday 8th February 16:25
Conspiracy theorist site I guess.
But hey; no smoke etc
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff