AOL E-Mail Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tom

Guest
In the next few months, you may find that AOL are blocking all our emails and sending them to your junk email box, purely because AOL will now be charging organisations to ensure email does not go in your junk email box.

RailUK is a non-profit organisation and, hence, will be unable to pay for the fees that AOL wish to impose, it being $0.25 per email probably. DearAOL (Our open letter to AOL) have begun a campaign against this step away from the way forward of the Internet.

This email is being sent to AOL.
We wish to express our serious concern with AOL's adoption of Goodmail's CertifiedEmail, which is a threat to the free and open Internet.


This system would create a two-tiered Internet in which affluent mass emailers could pay AOL a fee that amounts to an "email tax" for every email sent, in return for a guarantee that such messages would bypass spam filters and go directly to AOL members' inboxes. Those who did not pay the "email tax" would increasingly be left behind with unreliable service. Your customers expect that your first obligation is to deliver all of their wanted mail, and this plan is a step away from that obligation.


AOL's "email tax" is the first step down a slippery slope that will harm the Internet itself. The Internet is a revolutionary force for free speech, civic organizing, and economic innovation precisely because it is open and accessible to all Internet users equally. On a free and open Internet, small ideas can become big ideas overnight. As Internet advocacy groups, charities, non-profits, businesses, civic organizing groups, and email experts, we ask you to reconsider your pay-to-send proposal and to keep the Internet free.


A pay-to-send system won't help the fight against spam - in fact, this plan assumes that spam will continue and that mass mailers will be willing to pay to have their emails bypass spam filters. And non-paying spammers will not reduce the amount of mail they throw at your filters simply because others pay to evade them.


Perversely, the new two-tiered system AOL proposes would actually reward AOL financially for failing to maintain its email service. The chief advantage of paying to send CertifiedEmail is that it can bypass AOL's spam filters. Non-paying customers are being asked to trust that after paid mail goes into effect, AOL will properly maintain its spam filters so only unwanted mail gets thrown away.


But the economic incentives point the other way: The moment AOL switches to a two-tiered Internet where giant emailers pay for preferential service, AOL will face a simple business choice: spend money to keep regular spam filters up-to-date, or make money by neglecting their spam filters and pushing more senders to pay for guaranteed delivery. Poor delivery of mail turns from being a problem that AOL has every incentive to fix to something that could actually make them money if the company ignores it.


The bottom-line is that charging an "email tax" actually gives AOL a financial incentive to degrade email for non-paying senders. This would disrupt the communications of millions who cannot afford to pay your fees-including the non-profits, civic organizations, charities, small businesses, and community mailing lists that have arisen for every topic under the sun and that make email so vital to your subscribers.


And what if other Internet service providers retaliate and start demanding their own ransoms to accept mail from your millions of users? Your company works hard to simplify the Internet. Don't start a surcharge war that will complicate it with tiered services and dozens of middleman fees for every simple act of communication.


We have always been happy working together with you to fight spam and phishing. We have a common enemy in spammers. We are happy to work together to develop open approaches that attack the problem of spam and phishing. But a pay-to-send "certified" system does not help to fight spam. It only serves to make the Internet less free for everyone. We stand together in asking you to reconsider your decision to use CertifiedEmail.


Respectfully,
(the rest is not being inserted)
For more information, please see http://www2.dearaol.com/
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nitro

Member
Joined
20 Nov 2005
Messages
475
Location
London
Well, well, well looks like another little money scam to me. So now you are more or less having to pay to read the e-mails you want! This is just redicilous! They wont stop spamming and phishing. Infact it will make things worse as TC said because now spammers are going to have to pay (alittle) but in return they will get 100% peace-of-mind that people will read their e-mails which is what AOL are "trying" to stop. What next, paying to get an account with them??
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,551
If any people are stupid enough to be using AOL, then it's their problem if they don't get important emails... get a proper ISP or email account and you'll be fine.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
49,787
Location
Yorkshire
If AOL were genuinely trying to help, all it needs is to register the email address you are using to send from with them, and if they really want an admin fee, then something like 25p one-off should be sufficient. The idea of paying per email is laughable.

I'm not in America so why would I use America OnLine anyway? :roll:
 

ChrisM

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2005
Messages
716
Richard Armstrong said:
Typical AOL. They are the crappest ISP and their software is practically a virus.
Having used thwm in the past i totally agree.
AOL will do anything to get your money,last time it was charging to use 'customer support' :confused:
 

jamiephillips

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2006
Messages
6
Location
Birmingham
i am incredibly unfortunate - my parents have AOL, so if i want to use the internet, i'm bound to that. to be fair, the browser is good and easy to use - has a good email system and a 100 channel radio. it's still crap though. they have a 'chat support' system, and it's like talking to some kind of bot. its really irritating. AND... it regularly takes aaaaagggges for emails to come through. paying for a second class stamp would be better. ah well.
 
H

HR2

Guest
I'll endorse all the complaints. I have AOL and rue the day I got it. Although it has some good points like a decent browser they are far outweighed by the bad ones. I shall be changing soon hopefully to Blue Yonder [if I can get it in my new home].

So YES.. avoid AOL.!
 

LondonBVE

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2005
Messages
441
Location
Lost!
I used to use AOL as my email service after 2 months. I throw it aside.

Reason:

1. Their emails are craps. Yahoo, Hotmail, GoogleMail etc... are far more better.

2. AOL messenger they are killing me. After downloading my computer is working as slow as a turtle, after scanning found that AOL has virus.

3. AOL service are really crap.

Now they want every organisation to pay $0.25 for the email to go to the inbox or else all emails is going to the junk. What a stupid idea, if i am the spammer i will sure give the money and let it be on the inbox. Then people may think that is a normal mail. When they opened then they found themselves helping the virus to spread. So is totally craps to pay.
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
17,924
Location
Nowhere Heath
Same here AlexS. All these people who use FireFox, they just get on my nerves. They're the Pimp My Ride equivilent of the Internet, trying to show off to their fellow brats/immature 'adults'/chavs. I've tried other browsers, they are a waste of space.

As for AOL, don't get me started...
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,561
Location
London
Thanks :roll:

I have to say though firefox takes hours to load but i much prefer it; you can't really discriminate me beacuse i like something can you? (well obviously you can ;))
 
T

Tom

Guest
RailUK was tested in Internet Explorer but I didn't test it much, it does work fully in it though.

Firefox is one of the better browsers on the net, although I do feel that Microsoft use their power by distributing IE with their products. Here are a range of browsers that RailUK is confirmed to work with:
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
Tom said:
RailUK was tested in Internet Explorer but I didn't test it much, it does work fully in it though.

Firefox is one of the better browsers on the net, although I do feel that Microsoft use their power by distributing IE with their products. Here are a range of browsers that RailUK is confirmed to work with:
Why don't you just make it to W3 standards so that it works on any decent W3-appliant browser?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.railforums.co.uk


As for those who find Internet Explorer adequate, I fine Pendalinos adequate. Not brilliant but adequate. I suppose that makes 91 hauled sets and HSTs a waste of space.
 

AlexS

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2005
Messages
2,887
Location
Just outside the Black Country
IE users = majority of users therefore any forum which wishes to have a decent membership that hangs around for a while and isn't solely composed of, for want of a better word, 'geeks', must work with it. The other browsers are merely added extras.
 

Coxster

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
9,244
Nick W said:
That's not your problem, the IE users can stop being difficult.
How is using the browser that comes with your OS being difficult? It's you firefox'ers that are being difficult by going out of your way to use a different browser! ;)
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
Coxster said:
How is using the browser that comes with your OS being difficult? It's you firefox'ers that are being difficult by going out of your way to use a different browser! ;)
Personally I use the browser that comes with my OS - Safari in Mac OS X.
I don't need Tom to work hard to make the site work on my browser because it is W3 compliant, just like firefox.
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,551
Nick W said:
That's not your problem, the IE users can stop being difficult.
If you can persuade them to, then good for you!

If everybody used a W3C compliant browser it would be much easier...
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
17,924
Location
Nowhere Heath
See, this is what I have a problem with. You lot on FireFox treat it as God's Gift in terms of Internet browsers.

It is worthy of note that everyone that supports/treats FireFox as gospel is <18. Why is this worthy of note? It's well documented and acknowledged that it is this age of person that is the most immature, know-it-all in society. Generally. I don't know what you lot in the North do exactly, but down here in Civilised Country it is the <18s that cause the most irritance/trouble. It is this band of know-it-alls that think they can change the world, that think their actions are the best and everyone is wrong.

I've got news for you geeks/nerds:

GROW UP. IE is not a product of Satan, as it seems you lot treat it as. When you present FireFox in a mature, well documented and argued discussion, I might listen and consider trying FireFox. However, experience with third-party browsers shows that they are a waste of time and effort. I'd rather stick with good ol' reliable Internet Explorer and use Microsoft products. At least everyone knows what MS Word, Excel and Access, to name a few, is and understands how useful a qualification in these software packages is. Only the geeks and nerds know these other pieces of software such as Open Office and the rest of the junk.

Look at it like this: Someone with years of experience in Word, Excel and Access is going to be favoured over someone without this but experience in the 'other' software packages.

I'm beginning to ramble on here, but my point is this (aimed at FireFox users):

GROW UP, F**K OFF.

Take what you will from that, but I've said my piece. I'll stick to what I know and trust. You paranoid nerds can use your piles of junk all you want, but don't try to 'sell' your favoured browser as the world's best one around and that everyone should have it. FireFox sucks, always has done, always will do. End of story.

Regards, and I'll be looking forward to the flames (I've set up a large protective cave to hide in whilst you lot flame me for the above),

WSXFan
 
T

Tom

Guest
Before you say anything WSXFan, whether you say under 18s are immature generally, there are also people which are 18 and over which are immature.

I used Internet Explorer until I first heard about Firefox, which was about a year and a half ago now I believe. Internet Explorer was good while I used it, and so is Firefox. What I do get annoyed about is the following though ... and I'm not sure how you're going to say that this is "good":

Example A:


Example B:


Both screenshots were taken in Windows Vista Beta 2. Example A is Windows Internet Explorer, and example B is Firefox 1.5.

Whether you think the first image is acceptable ... well ... there you go, but Firefox has rendered the page successfully. Where you think I am being immature in saying that Firefox is good is your choice, but Firefox is good! Internet Explorer in the past has stolen features from the browsers, namely tabbed browsing in the latest version, as all the other browsers had it but MS had to introduce it.

I now have a balanced view of Vista, it is actually a reasonably good operating system and has that sidebar on the right, it's quite nifty IMO. And also as you can see, I am now using a theme which doesn't use extraordinary amounts of CPU, but uses a fair bit. The CPU spikes every 10 seconds or so to change the image on the right in the sidebar, but I quite like the feature.

I am quite happy with Windows Vista as it allows Firefox to work fine. May I remind you that many, many, many commercial environments have introduced Firefox into their environment as it is actually proven to be more secure and it is promoted in various magazines, whether you say the writers of those are under 18 ... that is another story. ComputerACT!VE, Personal Computer World, and other mags all promote Firefox, and I have seen some railway magazines promoting Firefox too.

Just remember one thing, Microsoft distribute IE with their Windows operating system, and I'm certainly sure that you could dispute that they are going against anti-competition laws but I am not going to go into that here and now. It is YOUR option whether you use IE or another browser, we are simply putting forward OUR case.

Tom
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
17,924
Location
Nowhere Heath
Hmm, well I'm not convinced. I see nothing there to persuade me that FireFox is the browser we should all be using.

Nah, I'll stick to what I know and like. These added features such as tabbed browsing I see no point to. Whatever happened to multiple browser windows? Just as easy.

And to add what I've just mentioned off-forum:

You'll never see me using FireFox. NEVER. You'll see me walking on water before that. Got that? No? NEVER. I'd rather become a 91 basher than use FireFox (anyone who truely knows my opinions knows that's not likely).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top