Posted on 02/06/2006 6:46:10 AM PST by xzins
Yahoo, AOL to Charge Some E-Mail Senders
By DAN GOODIN ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two of the world's biggest e-mail account providers, Yahoo Inc. and America Online, plan to introduce a service that would charge senders a fee to route their e-mail directly to a user's mailbox without first passing through junk mail filters, representatives of both companies said Sunday.
The fees, which would range from 1/4 cent to 1 cent per e-mail, are the latest attempts by the companies to weed out unsolicited ads, commonly called spam, and identity-theft scams. In exchange for paying, e-mail senders will be guaranteed their messages won't be filtered and will bear a seal alerting recipients they're legitimate.
Both companies have long filtered e-mail by searching for keywords commonly contained in spam and fraudulent e-mail. AOL also strips images and Web links from many messages to prevent the display of pornographic pictures and malicious Web addresses. Both practices sometimes falsely identify legitimate messages as junk mail, making life difficult for businesses that rely on e-mail.
"We were hearing not only from members but also e-mail partners that they wanted a different way of delivering e-mail that would stand out in the inbox and would guarantee them delivery," said spokesman Nicholas Graham, adding that AOL, a division of New York-based Time Warner Inc., will start offering the service in the next two months.
Company spokeswoman Karen Mahon said Sunday Sunnyvale-based Yahoo will begin offering a similar service in the coming months.
The plan, while it's optional and would apply to only a fraction of people sending e-mail, amounts to a reversal in the economics of the Internet because it would charge message senders rather than those receiving them. The current model has led to the proliferation of spam and so-called phishing scams because the people perpetuating them can turn a profit even when only a minority of recipients respond, analysts have said.
AOL and Yahoo said the program, which is being offered through a company called Goodmail Systems, will target banks, online retailers and other groups that send large amounts of e-mail. In exchange for a payment and a pledge to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, the companies would be ensured their e-mails aren't diverted to spam folders or have images or Web addresses filtered out.
The companies also would receive reports showing how many e-mails were received successfully. The American Red Cross, the New York Times Co. and credit report company Experian have signed up with Goodmail to use the service, Graham said. AOL and Yahoo would get a cut of the fees charged by Goodmail.
Companies that don't want to pay a fee will be able to send e-mail to Yahoo and AOL members exactly as they have in the past, Graham and Mahon said.
---
Is it just me, or does that sound like they make money by letting spammers get through to their customers?
That's the take on it I had.
I have Verizon/Yahoo and they do a pretty damn good job of filtering junk mail as it is. If I begin to get more junk mail in my 'inbox' because of their desire to make money off the senders, then I'll look elsewhere for my services.
Is there anyone on the planet, who would have even a passing interest in this article, that wouldn't know what "spam" is?
Isn't this like saying, "Attempts by General Motors to weed out defects in their non-truck products, commonly called cars..."?
Some are questioning GM & Ford's ability to produce those "non-truck items"
"Cars" seem to escape them these days.
:>)
I'm not too happy about this. What it means is that companies will be able to buy their way into my inbox. As it is now, very little spam makes its way into it. Most gets dumped into a bulk mail folder.
That's what I want. I don't want companies to be able to pay a penny to get into my inbox.
This reminds me of the hoax email that goes around that says the government is going to charge a fee for each email we send. I could get through on the link...is this really a true story, or another hoax?
This is in the LasVegas Sun and written by the Associated Press.
It could be these jerks raising a trial baloon, but I think they're serious.
I'm in the unique position of owning two rebuilt cars from the late 70s: a Chev Nova SS and a Mercedes 240D.
The difference between them is stunning: from a power prospective, the Nova is a wonderful to drive - there's nothing as fun as cruising down the road at 35 or so and then flooring an American muscle car. It's Classic with a capital "C" when the engine drops to a lower gear and the car jumps forward.
But beyond the joys of a small-block, 305 V8, the Nova is a complete and total piece of shit. It floats all over the place...the interior is put together half-assed and is uncomfortable, parts fall off for no reason and even though the Nova is longer and wider than the Mercedes the Nova has less cabin and truck space and is very uncomfortable.
As far as I can tell, the engineers of the Nova sat at a blank piece of paper and asked themselves, "What's the cheapest way we can get this super-sweet engine from point A to point B?"
The Mercedes, on the other hand - with it's jaw-droppingly goofy 67 horsepower - is incredibly well-built and a pure pleasure to drive. It's obvious the German designers of that car asked themselves, "What's the best way we can get people from point A to point B?"
If I could get the Nova's engine into the Mercedes body...
If Yahoo and/or AOL try this, they will suffer great consequences. Customers will exit in huge numbers, seeking another provider or portal that filters spam. Anyone who decides to compete with them by guaranteeing spam-free mail will gather millions of customers.
They will lose my business.
The bottom line for me, though, is that they've just granted access to my computer. I resent it.
Doesn't anyone get this? AOL and Yahoo are threatening free speech, a free Internet, and innovation in general. Small Internet companies, email newsletter publishers, and email discussion lists may be taxed out of existence. The result will be less innovation and less conversation. The Internet will cease to be a harbor of free speech. Instead, speech will be limited to those who can afford to pay ransom in the form of a private tax.
The Internet was funded by taxpayers through the Department of Defense. If it is owned by anyone, it is owned by the people. AOL and Yahoo did not create the Internet, do not own the Internet, but are effectively attempting to impose punitive taxation of the private email conversations of citizens and companies.
The AOL tax will be couched in paternalistic terms as a means of protecting users from spam, viruses, and phishing. Do not be fooled. It is a money grab, pure and simple. The former can all be accomplished for free (or almost free) with a simple whitelisting approach.
The only beneficiaries of AOL and Yahoo’s action are AOL and Yahoo executives who will pocket larger bonuses. AOL and Yahoo shareholders will only benefit superficially and short term, until the tax begins to impede innovation and reduce the dynamics of the Internet. Then, we all suffer.
Exactly, they just want to profit off of the spam.
$2500 per million may keep some spammers away, but I believe you are correct -- They are selling access to unfiltered in-boxes. As I have said many time before, follow the money. Spamming and virus, which includes detection for both is big money. Lots of big money from the anti-spyware, anti-spam, and anti-virus, companies going into pockets. Too much money to be made for out pols to take action.
I don't see cost as much of a "deterrant" to spam.
The market is smart enough to pick the price at which both spammers and providers make money.
If they won't pay 2 million for 30 seconds on the Super Bowl, maybe they'll pay 1 million.
All that's lacking is the negotiation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.