Stop AOL's email scheme

[Lois Gilbert]

Subject: Stop AOL's email scheme

I just signed an important online petition because the very existence of online organizing and the free Internet as we know it are under attack by America Online, and we need to fight back quickly.

The petition's at:

http://civic.moveon.org/AOLpetition/

AOL just announced what amounts to an "email tax." AOL would sell access to your inbox to giant corporations—allowing them to bypass spam filters and get messages directly into your inbox with a special high-priority designation. AOL says charging a fee will help deter spam, but it will actually help companies spam you more efficiently—and it'll lock out issue groups, charities, and other non-profits that can't afford to pay the price.

The big loser would be customers—whose email from non-paying senders would increasingly be marked as spam and be undelivered. AOL pretends that nothing would change for senders who don't pay, saying their emails will still be "accepted." But, this is an empty promise since "accepting" non-paid emails means many will be thrown into the black hole of a spam filter or "stripped of images and Web links" to the point of being unreadable, as reported in the New York Times.

Can you sign this emergency petition to America Online?

http://civic.moveon.org/AOLpetition/

Thanks!

[moneyp]

AOL can't sell access to your inbox if you're not on AOL.

[Jazzooo]

I just checked in at Snopes
.com and they are still researching this. To be honest, it sounds like an urban myth--AOL would lose so many customers so quickly if they actually sold our addresses to someone who would then turn around and spam us that it feels too far-fetched to be true. I'll check back in a couple of days and see what they say.

[LennyH]

This defies logic. Especially this:

"and it'll lock out issue groups, charities, and other non-profits that can't afford to pay the price."

I really don't see these groups as spammers and AOL certainly can't block legit emails from mailing lists, etc. that people join.

This smells.

[Ron Thorne]

• I agree that this alert has a certain odor about it.

• I'm mystified that Snopes hasn't been able to veryify or deny the reliability of this claim when it was reported to them on February 10th! Wouldn't a well-placed call to MoveOn.org and/or AOL pretty much be the beginning and end of whether it's true or not?

[Monte Smith]

Actually, this is at least partially true. The major in-box operators did announce a few weeks ago that they were initiating a fee-based anti-spam system. Mailers who are sending to more than a certain number of addresses (mass emailers) would have to pay a fee to the biggies in order to assure that their messages got through. Mass spammers not paying the fee would be deflected. Mailers sending single messages or non-mass mailings would be unaffected. And I think users can opt out of receiving any unwanted mail regardless of fee payment. I don't have all the details, but this was in all the business media a couple of weeks ago.

[bluenoter]

At the end of MoveOn's "fuller explanation":

–Eli Pariser, Noah T. Winer, Adam Green, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

Sources:

1. "Postage is due for companies sending e-mail," New York Times, February 4, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/8mfus
Edit: I replaced MoveOn's link with one that works for me. Tsk, tsk, MoveOn. The NYT article is dated 2-5-06, and corrections appear at the end.

2. "AOL's New Email Certification Program: Good Mail or Goodfellas?" L-Soft Release, February 2, 2006
http://www.lsoft.com/news/aol-goodmail.asp

3. "AOL, Yahoo and Goodmail: Taxing Your Email for Fun and Profit," Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 8, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1454

And here's one that I found (AFP via Yahoo News, 2-7-06):

Yahoo and AOL to charge firms for guaranteed email delivery

Note that Yahoo and Goodmail have the same idea. Half the purpose of the petition to AOL is to deter other e-mail providers from doing it.

(Wow, this is weird. How did my "edited" notice below get blue?)

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

(Wow, this is weird. How did my "edited" notice below get blue?)

It's obviously either the fault of AOL or IE.

[bluenoter]

Ron, in Firefox, do you see that "edited" notice at the bottom of #7 as mostly blue?

(Oooh! You even used "my" font! That's cold. )

Anyone, regardless of browser?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An e-mail that MoveOn sent me after I signed the petition contains the following:

AOL CLAIMS & REALITY

CLAIM: Nothing would change for non-paying email senders. This is just an extra service for paying senders.

FACT: AOL currently has a financial incentive to put top-notch maintenance into their free email system and make sure legitimate emails don't wind up in spam filters. This helps everyone--corporate senders, non-profit senders, and regular senders. 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. Despite their denials that things will change for regular email senders, which choice do you think they'll choose?

CLAIM: Charging a fee will help deter spammers.

FACT: AOL hasn't officially made this claim, but they've let it be implied in news articles and it's completely untrue. AOL's "email tax" would not prevent giant senders from sending email, especially since many of these same senders are willing to pay a lot more money to send advertisements through the postal service. AOL's pay-to-send system would actually make it a sweeter deal for them to send mass emails - giving guaranteed delivery to people's inboxes with a preferential high-priority designation. Additionally, those who break the rules and spam recklessly right now have no incentive to reduce spamming because of AOL's proposed policy.

CLAIM: This is not an "email tax."

FACT: If AOL has its way, the only way to guarantee mail is being delivered will be to pay. For email senders, it amounts to an email tax--except the money goes to AOL instead of the government.

CLAIM: This MoveOn email is a hoax, we will not charge email senders.

It most definitely is not a hoax, and the charge to email senders has been publicly announced in the New York Times, the Associated Press, and other media outlets.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

Both Netscape and Safari show it as blue, yes.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

Both Netscape and Safari show it as blue, yes.

Thanks!

I hate not knowing how that happened or how I can make it happen again.

[Borat Pri Hagafen]

It truly is one of life's mysteries

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Borat Pri Hagafen

It truly is one of life's mysteries

It sure is! (Try making an automatic "edited" notice blue!)

[Reizar]

I have nothing to do with AOL. I have an aim.com e-mail address, but that's all. But I'll check it out anyway. E-mail tax is an infringement of some sort, but I really can't get too pissed off about it until I know exactly what kind.

Thanks Lois.

[Chaz Longue]

Originally Posted by Reizar

I have nothing to do with AOL. I have an aim.com e-mail address, but that's all. But I'll check it out anyway. E-mail tax is an infringement of some sort, but I really can't get too pissed off about it until I know exactly what kind.

Thanks Lois.

The first two statements here are mutually exclusive, no?

See the sources quoted above, and you'll pretty quickly know. If I hadn't read all about this in the newspapers (what Monte refers to above) I'd be rolling my eyes about this too. I'd go to Snopes and post a comment about Urban Legends, gullibility and rumours. But this in fact something new and different.

[bluenoter]

February 24, 2006

Strange Bedfellows Unite
to Fight AOL's "Email Tax"

National Conference Call - Tuesday [Feb. 28], 1pm EST

This Tuesday, an unlikely coalition of left and right, non-profits and small businesses, and Internet advocacy groups will hold a national telephone news conference call to announce an unprecedented combined campaign against AOL's new "pay-to-send" email proposal – which amounts to an "email tax."

To RSVP for the call, please email Alex@Fenton.com. Space is limited.

Under AOL's recently announced "certified email" proposal, large emailers willing to pay an "email tax" can bypass spam filters and get guaranteed access to people's inboxes—with their messages having a preferential high-priority designation. Charities, small businesses, civic organizing groups, and even families with mailing lists will have no guarantee that their email will be delivered unless they are willing to pay the "email tax" to AOL. 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. The Internet is a force for democracy and economic innovation because it is open to all Internet users equally – AOL's "email tax" would create an unlevel playing field and harm the Internet forever.

Tuesday's 1pm EST conference call will be co-hosted by Internet free speech advocates the Electronic Frontier Foundation and media policy group Free Press. Participants will include Craig Newmark of Craiglist and representatives from the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org Civic Action, and the Association of Cancer Online Resources. Dozens of other concerned groups will be announced on the call as members of the coalition, and details about the campaign will be announced on the call.

WHAT: Conference call to announce campaign against AOL's "email tax"

WHO: Co-hosts: Electronic Frontier Foundation & Free Press

PARTICIPANTS: Craig Newmark (Craigslist), Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org Civic Action, the Association of Cancer Online Resources

WHEN: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 – 1PM EST

RSVP: Please email Alex@Fenton.com. Space is limited.

Contacts:

Trevor Fitzgibbon or Alex Howe
Fenton Communications
alex@fenton.com

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
rebecca@eff.org

Posted at 10:52 AM <-- click for a permanent link to this announcement, or look for it by date at

http://www.eff.org/news/