HOW MUCH WOULD YOU PAY FOR SENDING EMAIL?

SUNDAY, MARCH 7 2004 @ 12:49 PM

The latest from Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail:

"NEW YORK (AP) -- If the U.S. Postal Service delivered mail for free, our mailboxes would surely runneth over with more credit-card offers, sweepstakes entries, and supermarket fliers. That's why we get so much junk e-mail: It's essentially free to send. So Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates, among others, is now suggesting that we start buying "stamps" for e-mail."

Archived under: Miscelanea. | Permalink | google | del.icio.us Is it delicious? | digg Do you digg it?


ERICD

MARCH 7 2004 @ 01:01 PM

hmmm - pay whom exactly?

personally i wouldn't want to pay for email at all. change the way email can be used and fine the HELL out of those who spam. why should we have to pay when they are the ones spamming? let the spammers pay... through the nose.

JON B

MARCH 7 2004 @ 03:07 PM

Keep email free, that is what makes it great - I'd rather have free email and loads of spam (which can easily be filtered using a cheap or free spam filter program). As far as I'm concerned paying to be on the internet is enough paying, no way should we have to pay for email. Bill Gates should look for a different way to back up his promise to rid the world of spam by 2006.

OSCAR TRELLES

MARCH 7 2004 @ 03:34 PM

I was on my way out when I posted this, so I didn't add anything to it, I just wanted to share that article as soon as possible.

So, I have to second Eric's question: who's gonna collect that money? I guess the ones in charge of policing email traffic, maybe Billy himself? I don't know, and I don't care: attempting to charge for email traffic will only defeat its whole purpose, for a number of reasons.

It isn't only unfair to us, non-spammers, to be charged for sending messages to family, friends, colleagues or clients, but completely obstructive, invasive and unpractical. Would they charge my credit card $0.01 for each email I sent? or a monthly fee? flat or based on use? upfront? 10 seconds of my cpu per message? what if I'm sending a huge attachment, 1 extra second for each kb?

c'mon...

GREGORY NARAIN

MARCH 7 2004 @ 11:56 PM

I covered this article on my blog as well, here's an excerpt:

"In essence, trust is established by completing a human task. The belief is that the cost to outwit these systems would be too great for the SPAM industry to endure, and, effectively stem or possibly eliminate SPAM as a whole. Somehow, I just don't get it."

I go on to list a slew of problems with charging for e-mail as a whole. If anyone's interested, the rest is here:

http://socialtwister.com/archives/000101.html

CEDRIC

MARCH 8 2004 @ 06:04 AM

quite simple: you pay stamps BECAUSE the Post Office HAS some charges /structures / costs .... regarding EMAIL, I must admit, I will never pay .... because THERE ARE no costs to providing email ... right ? this is a service ...

now speaking of SMS, we are being abused ;-)

DOUGLAS MCCARROLL

MARCH 8 2004 @ 09:37 AM

It seems like a great idea to me, *if* we're paying the recipient. I'd like to be able to set a policy that says that anyone who isn't in my address book has to pay me a tenth of a cent to send me an email. Legitimate stranges wouldn't mind, and I'd add them to my address book. Spam would become history.

OSCAR TRELLES

MARCH 8 2004 @ 10:18 AM

Well, legitimate incoming traffic would be even more difficult to track properly, given all the spoofing techniques out there.

Besides, it's the same thing: if they paid recipients, instead of charging senders, that means I would be charging my family and friends to keep in touch with me. In the other hand, paying to get messages on my clients inboxes 'would make more sense' that charging them for asking me for quotes.

I wish we could apply this system to the snail mail system, though: I would ask Gates to pay me $10 for each unsolicited piece of mail I get from Microsoft... that would cover all I spend in coffee throughout the week.

GREGORY NARAIN

MARCH 8 2004 @ 10:36 AM

I think it should be made clear that Gates is not specifically talking about a monetary cost, in so much as, a human cost that requires the application of "human" skills to solve a "puzzle" -- something that would theoretically present enough barriers to spammers.

OSCAR TRELLES

MARCH 8 2004 @ 10:59 AM

Which could be even worse for people outside the US. At least money is the same everywhere. That kind of barriers could make accessibility issues greater, and exclude entire countries from the global dynamics that email makes possible.

I understand that nobody has 'defined' trading policies on this matter, and they shouldn't. Email needs to remain as it is now, to serve its purpose. It isn't completely fee if you think about it: you pay for it along with your Internet access service, with your hosting provider, with your dedicated server fees, etc.

People need to learn to apply filters, or buy one of those spam detectors and ignore spammers as much as they can. Law enforcement must catch up with technology and put spammers physically out of business.

I'm not paying to send nor charging to receive email.

LEE DEMOND

MARCH 8 2004 @ 12:26 PM

I wouldn't want to pay any additional fees atop those I already pay.

As far as spamming goes it is really up to administrators to filter it out.

We could rely on a govt. entity to watch for spam and then chase the spammers down and slap the heck out of them or something.

Although I hate it I just have one thing for the spammers... my delete key. Right in line with my circular file for postal junk mail.

It is up to us as human beings to just delete the spam and continue making a stink about how cold email marketing doesn't work (and even can ruin your business).

I don't understand why companies don't just rely on search engines on the Internet. Those dumb mass mailings are just like a virus to me (not read just deleted).

Oh well, it's like infomercials I guess.

DOUGLAS MCCARROLL

MARCH 8 2004 @ 08:43 PM

Oscar,

In your response to my post you said, "if they paid recipients, instead of charging senders, that means I would be charging my family and friends to keep in touch with me"

Nope. My suggestion avoids this scenario. I said, "anyone who isn't in my address book has to pay me a tenth of a cent". I assume that your family and friends are in your address book. :-)

Also, I don't understand "legitimate incoming traffic would be even more difficult to track properly, given all the spoofing techniques out there". ??? Could you go into a bit more detail on this?

Are you suggesting that spammers would spoof so that it appears that their email is coming from someone in your address book? I suppose that this is possible - lots of viruses do just that - but it certainly raises the bar for spammers. They'd have to write viruses - as opposed to simply sending out massive numbers of emails.

I guess that some of the more sophisticated spammers would move to using viruses, but I think that that might be easier to stop than the current really-simple spam - my anti-virus software works better than my spam software!

But perhaps I miss your point entirely....

OSCAR TRELLES

MARCH 9 2004 @ 10:00 AM

Douglas,

Spammers are already using viruses to harvest email addresses from our personal address books. Not only that, some of the latest virus outbreaks, like 'MyDoom' have been trying to establish temporal spamming servers on infected machines, using nothing less that your Outlook address book.

I wasn't really answering to your post, I was more like looking at the proposal from the article from the other perspective. Of course, if there was a way to detect who's not in your address boos and charge them for the messages they send you, it would take of your family and friends, but not legitimate business inquiries from prospective clients. A tenth of a cent is nothing, but in this case my point is not about the money, but about the obstacle such a system will be.

It's true that anti-virus software works better that anti-spam programs. For some reason, you always end up reviewing your junk mail folder just to be sure you are not missing anything. I'm not using any anti-spam software as of yet, I'm relaying on my continuously evolving series of email filters, and am satisfied so far.

DOMINICK ACCATTATO

MARCH 11 2004 @ 09:56 AM

Ok, I have already ruled this out. spoofing would not only send to people who have me in their address book, but also to people who don't. I don't want to be charged for that especially if the virus isn't on my machine. Now if things were digitally signed, the solution suggested could be a possiblity. One other thing, many wardrivers can currently send out tons of email from ip's that are irrelevant. So is Microsoft really willing to jepordize the customer base that has no clue on how to secure their system. I dont' think so! Last, how would they go about implementing this. You would have to subscribe i would think? Cause I can build an email server, its just a protocol, and you could build a client, hell we could build a new protocol to send mail. I won't pay for email and thats that... imagine excite, yahoo having to pay for email... pfff they would be charging a lot more, and where would this money eventually come from.. us.