Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - AOL in Spat Over Certified E-Mail 'Tax'

   (Mar 1, 2006 - 11:46 AM)

   That is analogous to asking why the post office should profit from providing certified mail? Or why should the post office charge me for sending mail (ie. billing statements) from a business that can prove its legitimacy (ie. bank).
   
   I have not been an AOL member for some time, but ultimately AOL is providing a service to ITS members, not to the public at large. It costs AOL to provide and manage email servers, so AOL has a vested in interest in reducing the amount of "junk" mail while giving legitimate senders a means to ensure delivery. Note that it is ensured delivery, not ensured views, as individuals can further limit the messages they want to see.
   
   In no way is this plan an infringement on free trade. Free trade does not mean that you get to trade for free. AOL has a right to limit or grant access to their resources (mail servers) however they choose.
   
   You speak of AOL dipping into a companies profit margins. Since when has it become right to expect to use someone else's property for free? As it stands now, it is the other companies who are dipping into the profit margin of AOL by requiring AOL to handle (at its own cost) all of the email (valid and spam) that a company might want to send.
   
   I think the certified mail analogy is fairly accurate. While most snail mail gets to its intended destination (your mailbox), sometimes mail gets lost or put in the wrong mailbox. By paying extra for certified mail, you get the assurance that the mail was at least received by a recipient. The AOL plan is similar in nature, in that it assures that the mail is delivered to the recipients mail box.
   
   I am not an AOL fan, but give them a break. They are a business trying provide services for their customers for profit.