E-mail Charges?

  albu 10:22 07 Feb 2006

If AOL and Yahoo are going to start charging firms for sending email, all be it to bypass their spam filter, could this spell the start for the general charging of sending email?

Will other ISP's jump on the bandwagon?

Any thoughts?

Thanks, albu

  GANDALF <|:-)> 11:42 07 Feb 2006

click here on the face of it there seems to be some sense in what they are saying. It costs to post a letter by land mail os being charged to send an email is a logical step.


  SG Atlantis® 11:55 07 Feb 2006

Gandalf if you think it's a logical step to be charged for sending an email because you pay for "land mail" you're deluded.

The spam filter should be free, spammers will find away round it anyway.

When you post a letter by normal mail a huge workforce is responsible for getting it to where it's meant to go. An email? come on.

  wee eddie 12:39 07 Feb 2006

I suppose you reckon that Servers and their Staff all do their bit for free!

  SG Atlantis® 12:52 07 Feb 2006

ISP email costs is recouped in the charge you pay every month.

Yahoo, google and all get their money from advertising and premium services.

  Djohn 12:52 07 Feb 2006

I don't suppose for one minute that servers and staff work for nothing, isn't that what we pay a fee to our ISP's for?

Spam is something that is clogging up the net but AOL are just trying to make money from this. They have draconian filters in place that do not work correctly and now want others to pay to help clean up their servers. [It will be others by the way that have to pay to send through AOL, not AOL users] Anyway, according to most sources spam is not as bad as it used to be and is in fact decreasing this past 12 months.

If I want to send an attachment to an AOL end user I'm not going to pay extra for it. My ISP does not use filters of any kind yet I have never received a single spam in all the time I've been with them.

No, I'm sorry, I don't agree its a logical step. In fact I think we should do all we can to prevent it. PCA often post to their members. Will they start paying to send to AOL customers, or just leave them out of newsletters and competitions?

  Rigga 13:04 07 Feb 2006

I think all email should be paid for!

How about if all ISP's included a reasonable amount of email in their charge, say 1000 emails a month.

and after that it costs 0.1p to send each email.

Us, being normal users would probably never reach the thousand, but spammers, need to send millions of emails to get any return. Which would start to cost them money, so they would stop. Maybe?


  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:32 07 Feb 2006

I'm afraid that SG Atlantis® is the deluded one and is not being realistic and banish the hippy view that all should be free for life. If you would care to have a look at any ISPs TP&L accounts before making rash statements you would be very surprised and horrified at the figures. Many ISPs have mooted the idea of charging for mail but the practicality of collecting the charges is not simple. You only pay an ISP for the privilege of connecting to the net...email is an extra.

You have to learn that in this world there is rarely anything for free and you have to pay the man at sometime or other. ISPs are a business and strange though it may seem, thay HAVE to make a profit which means maximising any avenue. The intenet is free to a certain extent but you have to pay for the connection.

However in times of increasing fiscal awareness there may come a point where the expensive servers that run the net may start needing to make a profit and the time may be sooner than most hope.


  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:33 07 Feb 2006

ps..if SG Atlantis® believes in a free internet then spammers have as much right as anyone to use the net..haven't they?


  Djohn 14:30 07 Feb 2006

My post GANDALF <|:-)> did not mention getting everything for free or that profit is a dirty word and I realise your replies above are not aimed at me personally. I am with an ISP that is far from cheap, I pay £35 every month for a 2 mb connection and I'm more than happy to do so because they give an excellent service that is second to none.

Its the principle of paying for email attachments and that is what this is about, attachments. AOL have extremely strong filters that do not work as they were intended to and often block what is legitimate mail from reaching their clients mail boxes.

AOL users and others who deal with AOL customers have long been complaining [PCA included] of their mail being bounced back or blocked by AOL servers.

AOL are now proposing offering a two tier service. 1) normal mail that may or may not get blocked by the filters, or 2) a paid for service were AOL will let the mail through to the end user [bypass the filters] regardless of whether it is spam or not, just because its been paid for.

Paid for mail with attachments will not go through AOL's filters, therefore its guaranteed to reach the person its intended for. Large spamming company's will find a way of dealing with this but the ordinary user will end up paying just to send attachments such as a photo to a friend who happens to be with AOL.

We are having to pay for something that AOL uses [Filters] that don't work properly in the first instance so that they don't need to use them, therefore saving them money as well as making money from the charging of same.

  amonra 14:53 07 Feb 2006

Some ISP somewhere is already thinking up schemes to give you EMs for free.
I have heard that one well known one is considering attaching a small advert to each EM to raise revenue. I'd be quite happy with a small UNOBTRUSIVE advert to get a free service. I dont send or receive hundreds of messages so it's no big deal.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy S9 review

Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 and 32 review – hands-on

When is the next Apple event?

Qu’est-ce qu’Amazon Prime ?