Slashdot Mirror


Bulk Email Tax Getting Closer

Strudelkugel writes "The Financial Times reports a growing interest in the concept of bulk email fees: Direct Marketing Association and libertarians oppose, ISPs and companies losing marketing messages to spam filters in favor. Then there's the rest of us."

4 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid idea. It would be the death of email by computersareevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would be capitally stupid. Just like CAN-SPAM, it would legitimize spam! Once the spamming scumbags PAY for it, your ISP would not be allowed to block it!

    So all those thousands of messages that are blocked now at the ISP level and higher would flow down to your poor little inbox. Suddenly your inbox is 99.6% spam, and most of your bandwidth is dedicated to downloading it. That would be the end of email.

  2. Once Companies See They Can Charge for EMail... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...we're all in trouble. Once AOL realizes they can charge even so much as a penny for spam, it won't be long before some executive, eager to show a profit for his department at a shareholder's meeting will realize he can start charging for incoming or outgoing e-mail.

    Then Earthlink, MSN, and everyone else will realize they can do the same thing and within a year or two e-mail won't be free anymore -- at least if you're sending to the big guys.

    Then again, once that gets to be common practice, someone will probably realize they can gain customers by advertising as the one major ISP that doesn't charge for e-mail, so maybe there'll be a balance.

    But I don't trust the big guys to charge for spam only and realize they could charge for other e-mail and NOT charge everyone else. Remember, in America, profit is the bottom line and just about all most businesses care about.

  3. Next up: Outlawing Spam Filters? by qtp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the ISPs begin charging for email, and the system is put in place by federal law, it is likely that there will be a ban on spam filters at the ISP level, at least for spam that is in compliance with the regs.

    I do not want to see spam legitimized by law. I enjoy the effective spam filtering my email provider has implemented. Actually, they are not likely to be affected by this because they are not in the US, but do not think there is any reason that US based email providers should be prevented from filtering spam, and I do not trust the DMA or other Corps to come up with a definition of spam the I or other users would agree with.

    The largest ISPs are being insincere about the spam issue, and are attempting to ensure that their spam spewing customers are protected while they can enjoy increased revenues by helping the spammers to stuff our inboxes.

    They (MSN, Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, Comcast, etc) do not want to stop spam, they only wish to get rich off of it.

    --
    Read, L
  4. The guy in the middle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But advocates of a fee-based system for bulk e-mail believe it would help distinguish between legitimate e-mail from respectable corporations and offensive spam from shady operators who presumably could not afford to send tens of millions of messages a day.

    Okay, but what about the guys who are NOT corporations and are NOT shady operators? What about guys like me who run small to medium internet sites with less than 100,000 registered members on which their entire SERVICE is based on communication through email? (Registration notifications, password reminders, auction notices, etc)?

    This is going to drive spammers under ground even further (or out of the company) and put the big corporations in the power-seat. And it's going to leave the honest guy trying to make a living (or run his hobby) who does no harm to anyone, right out of "business".

    This is a worse idea than the Tarriff-22/CARP thing they tried in 2002/2003, where they wanted to tax EVERYONE who broadcasts music in any form, per listener, whether or not the person had direct permission of the artist and whether or not the artist had anythign to do with the music associations - and then distribute that tax to the top few dozen artists.

    In other words, if Mr. McSmallBand records a CD for free and gives it to you with permission to play it on your online radio station, you have to pay a fee for every person who listens to that song to the government association and that association redstributes it to the top RIAA recording artists, even though they have NOTHING to do with it and the artist that you played isn't even a member of them or signed by anyone.

    This is EXACTLY the same and JUST as bad, if not worse. This WILL DRIVE ME OUT OF MY HOBBY... And I have never harmed ANYONE and I DO NOT SPAM ANYONE. This is fucked up and I'm seriously pissed off.