Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thread: Email Stamps - True?
03-24-2004, 10:18 AM #1
Email Stamps - True?
Just got this on a chain mail and was wondering if anyone can verify or negate it? I've heard it was under consideration and hope it's not making headway in Congress.
Subject: Federal Bill 602P-Mail Charge
Federal Bill 602P will permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent charge on every delivered E-mail.
Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and
continue using E-mail. The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect our use of the Internet.
Under proposed legislation, the US Postal Service will be attempting to bill E-mail users out of "alternative postage fees."
Bill 602P will permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent
surcharge on every e-mail delivered, by billing Internet Service
Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington, DC lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law.
The US Postal Service is claiming lost revenue, due to the proliferation of E-mail, is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign: "There is nothing like a letter."
Since the average person received about 10 pieces of E-mail per day in 1998, the cost of the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents a day -- or over $180 per year -- above and beyond their regular Internet costs.
Note that this would be money paid directly to the US Postal Service for a service they do not even provide.
The whole point of the Internet is democracy and noninterference. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic inefficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from coast to coast. If the US Postal Service is allowed to tinker with E-mail, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States.
Congressional representative, Tony Schnell (R) has even suggested a "$20-$40 per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the governments proposed E-mail charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story the only exception being the Washingtonian which called the idea of E-mail surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th, 1999 Editorial). Do not sit by and watch your freedom erode away!
03-24-2004, 10:19 AM #2
It was just on MSN yesterday as one of the top 10 e-mail scams/hoaxes."Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow, what a Ride!"
03-24-2004, 10:31 AM #3
03-24-2004, 10:35 AM #4Originally posted by altagirl
It was just on MSN yesterday as one of the top 10 e-mail scams/hoaxes.
03-24-2004, 10:36 AM #5
I'm such a sucker..........
03-24-2004, 10:37 AM #6
Definately one of the top 10 hoaxes of all time. The people that dreamed this up should be proud of it's longevity....
03-24-2004, 10:37 AM #7
if a tax was established for delivered e-mail messages, how would i learn about the latest in hair replacement technology, get info about amazing money-making plans or know where to find pictures of "naked and barely legal" teens?
MAN, i hope i keep getting tons of spam because it's sweet. if i don't empty my yahoo bulk mail folder every few days, the influx of spam always puts me over the amount of memory i'm allowed to use without paying for my address - which is annoying. mmm... spamburger hamburger.
03-24-2004, 10:40 AM #8Skiing, where my mind is even if my body isn't.
03-24-2004, 11:16 AM #9Permanent JONG
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
The federal government billing for email is BAD. However, I'm not totally convinced that billing for email is altogether bad. What if I set up a system that worked like this:
1. An email is sent to me.
2. If the sender on my "free" list, the email comes through
3. If the sender is not on my "free" list, they are billed 5c or 10c for the email.
4. After reading an email from someone not on my "free" list, I am given 3 choices: block all further email, continue to bill them foremails sent, or add them to my "free" list.
This system doesn't put a large financial burden on everyday people, because most email is sent to people we know, and 10c just isn't that much money. However, if you're sending out millions of emails advertising herbal viagra, it's going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of implementing this system could easily be recovered if the mail hosting companies (hotmail, yahoo, earthlink, AOL, Joe's internet, etc) got to keep the postage paid by people sending their customers email. There would also be free addresses for people who expect to recieve lots and lots of email from people they don't know (like firstname.lastname@example.org).
I imagine a system like this would instantly end all true spam. We would still recieve targeted emails, because the companies sending those out would expect enough of a return to make the 10c postage worthwhile. Basically, this would cut down the amount of spam recieved until it is similar to the amount of junkmail we receive through the postal service.
The only serious issue is that the system would have to be implemented simultaneously by all email providers, otherwise those on the new system would be completely unable to receive email from those on the old system.
03-24-2004, 11:23 AM #10
I hate it when the government does that!
Sprite"I call it reveling in natures finest element. Water in its pristine form. Straight from the heavens. We bathe in it, rejoicing in the fullest." --BZ