CNN: (Bill) Gates: Buy stamps to send e-mail

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html

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.

Many Internet analysts worry, though, that turning e-mail into an economic commodity would undermine its value in democratizing communication. But let's start with the math: At perhaps a penny or less per item, e-mail postage wouldn't significantly dent the pocketbooks of people who send only a few messages a day. Not so for spammers who mail millions at a time.

Though postage proposals have been in limited discussion for years -- a team at Microsoft Research has been at it since 2001 -- Gates gave the idea a lift in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Details came last week as part of Microsoft's anti-spam strategy. Instead of paying a penny, the sender would "buy" postage by devoting maybe 10 seconds of computing time to solving a math puzzle. The exercise would merely serve as proof of the sender's good faith.

Time is money, and spammers would presumably have to buy many more machines to solve enough puzzles. The open-source software Hashcash, available since about 1997, takes a similar approach and has been incorporated into other spam-fighting tools including Camram and Spam Assassin.

Uh Bill, my snail mail box does run over with credit-card offers, sweepstakes entries, and supermarket fliers. Guess you're trying to make the old email hoax I get a couple of times a year that email postage will be charged true.

[RandomKoolzip]

1. What a great fucking idea.

:eyes:


Lemme guess...Gates is going to benefit from this proposal? Fuck him. DU PM's and e-mail will still be free; I'll just get my friends and relatives an account here, so we can communicate that way, and they can educate themselves on the issues at the same time.

[northzax]

2. so what's wrong with postage for email?

the way I would set it up is like so:

you attach two pennies to every email you send. If your email is opened, one penny goes to the account of the recipient, and one to the receiving ISP, otherwise both would go to the recieving ISP (to support such things as junk mail filters.)

Most ISPs would establish as system, by demand from their clients, to have 'safe lists' who would not be charged for access to your inbox, your mom could still email you at no additional charge. but unsolicited email would cost you 2 cents each until that person puts you on a safe list. What's the problem, exactly?

[DarkPhenyx]

4. They already charge us...

...for too many things taht are free. You are also, already, paying for your ISP access. That is enough money thank you.

[northzax]

7. it's not free.

email costs money. sure, at this time your ISP provides you with unlimited email, but it wasn't always that way, you know, people used to have serious monthly quotas on bandwidth, just like cell phone plans. This is like people who complain about paying tolls on highways, since roads are 'free' no they aren't, you still pay, just in different ways.

nothing is free, you know?

[DarkPhenyx]

9. I do not pay a per e-mail charge currently.

Therefore it is a free service provided to me by my ISP. I do pay them foe the access to the internet w/o which the free service would be pretty useless.

However I can get free access in several different ways, and then I don't even have that charge for a free service.

Air is free. Water should be.

[northzax]

12. so email is equal to air and water? please.

you just described it as a service provided on a complimentary basis by your ISP. well, I got 10 complimentary car washes when I purchased my new car, doesn't mean I'm entitled to a lifetime of free car washes, does it?

You know, just for fun, call your ISP and tell them that you would like to cancel your ability to dial-up (the thing you a putatively paying for) but you expect to be able to keep your 'free' email account. When they are done laughing at you, ask them again, after all, the email is "free" right? you have a right to have a corportation provide you with a service for no charge, right?

good luck with that.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. One word.

HotMail

[DarkPhenyx]

14. I also forgot that TV is free.

Or at least free to me.

[DarkPhenyx]

15. I also forgot dirt. It's free too.

So with water, air, and dirt I have food. So food is free as well, or can be. Dirt, air and water also can provide me with housing, so housing can be free as well.

Do I need to go on?

I am simply pointing these things out because you said, and I quote, "nothing is free".

[northzax]

26. no, dirt isn't free either

but nice try. find me some dirt that isn't owned by someone? and water isn't free either, most fresh water in this country is allocated via the water rights system. And yes, you can go down to the Potomac and drink some water, but I don't reccomend it without purification (something that requires cost) In fact, Virginia and Maryland just went to the Supreme court over who owns the water in the Potomac.

but I guess if your best arguement is is that air is free, you have all but conceeded the point and are now just arguing for the sake of the sport. or did you have a reasonable answer to my points?

[DarkPhenyx]

28. Did you have a reasonable point that you made?

OK, That's easy. Where do you want the dirt sent?

Water is also free. I can find water that doesn't need purification as well. Isn't hard really.

Care to continue?

[northzax]

30. yes, my point is that you already pay for email

through the fees assessed my your ISP. The whole idea that Email is FREE is absurd.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. But I don't have to pay.

I can get it for free. Which would be my point. It isn't absurd. The US post used to be free, if I remember correctly. Free to teh user at any rate.

[northzax]

34. you get it for free

but someone is paying, no? you think the infrastructure is free? the operations are free?

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Which is absolutely not my concern.

Free to me is free. Just like the water out of the well in my backyard. Belong to no one and is free to me.

[northzax]

40. ah, a freeloader

makes more sense then.

[DarkPhenyx]

47. No, not a freeloader.

careful...that's name calling and will get you warned.

[leesa]

44. Funny. You are squashing your initial point. If e-mail is not free, then

why should we be forced to pay an additional fee for it?

[northzax]

45. because it isn't free

right now you are subsidizing every porn distributor in the world. you like that?

[Lori Price CLG]

27. The problem is, it would hinder online activism AND...

Another problem is, my email accounts are periodically hijacked, etc., due to my activism. It's reasonable to assume, the corporations would make out like bandits via loopholes, and the average person (and activists) would lose, as usual. This insane rule would (down then line, when the Reichwingers are done with it) effect those fighting the Bush dictatorship.

-Lori

[sendero]

41. As long as MicroSoft...

... has nothing whatsoever to do with it, I might be interested.

Otherwise, Bill can shove it where the SPAM can't go.

[mumon]

51. This would be idiotic.

I rarely get on the bandwagon that conservatives would get on, but at 1 cent per e-mail, in my job, I can send, easily $20 per day.

What about e-mail reflectors? I send on those to hundreds of people.

There's 200 or so people at my company. That's up to $4k per day.

[northzax]

56. ok, what part of "safe list" didn't you get?

you could create a "safe list" of people who could send you email for free. and internal emails would be at the discretion of the company, obviously. Just like it costs you .37 to mail a letter through the USPS, but you can walk it down the hall for free. If your company wanted to waive the fee, it would be up to them.

but if you were charged .01 for every email, maybe you'd send fewer of them, it's remarkable how people managed to do business without email for millenia. You really send 2000 emails a day? damn, is your job writing email for someone?

[BiggJawn]

3. There's just one small problem, Bill....

It doesn't cost me anything other than the price of postage to have a letter or packag delivered across the country by uniformed professional government couriers.

Now, buying an "E-stamp" to send an Email would not be too bad, as long as the Great Bill Gates provides everyone with a FREE ISP to manage their Email.

Yeah, like THAT's gonna happen anytime soon....

[gasperc]

23. he doesn't mean cash

he talking about a software "delay" so to speak that would bog spammers that would tons of computing power to force their systems to solve math puzzle

[trogdor]

5. That bit about the math puzzle has merit, though.

Make the computer do it, though. If it takes an extra couple of seconds to send one email, nobody'd notice. If spam artists had to take the same a couple of seconds multiplied by the millions of emails they send a day, it would seriously slow them down. The length of time it takes to factor a large enough number into the two primes multiplied together to generate it (the idea behind public-key encryption) should be more than sufficient to hobble the spam industry.

[loftycity]

6. Looking for new profits from a now old technology

Gates/ISP's will make more money. Yes they will charge you for your personal email and it will not stop spam.
Because spam is a business tax write off for businesses.

[bearfan454]

8. FTS !

free email for everyone.

[Retrograde]

10. And how much goes into Microsoft's coffers?

Just to cover expenses, of course.

linda

[gWbush is Mabus]

11. I would rather have spam and free email

I can spend the 10 sec. deleting the spam than one math problem for every email sent.

[LiberalFighter]

53. And for those that have the inclination..

they can create rules that will either delete or place specific email into the trash folder.

Both Netscape and Outlook have that capability.

I do it with my ISP account by using certain key words or ISP addresses.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. How about paying for RETURNED email.

If the recipient does not accept it, you get billed.

Of course most spammers are spoofing the return address (an accurate return address would be necessary for billing purposes) and if you could fix that, the problem would mostly go away anyhow....

[Khephra]

17. Once they can charge us any amount, no matter how small

How long do you think it would be before they raised the prices? And then raised them again? And again. And again.

There are a lot of groups, especially non-profit groups, that use mass email (not spam) for noble or wanted purposes. This screws them too.

For those who are saying that email isn't free, that it costs IPs. Well, that's why I freeping pay $50 out a month for cable internet. Don't tell me that they're not making MORE than enough from that to pay for my email and still make a nice profit, no matter how many mails I might happen to send in a month.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. Maybe your ISP could include 100 paid emails a month

the revenue from mass (>100/month) emailers would go back to the ISP's and potentially LOWER our rates (I can dream, can't I?)

[Ravy]

19. Personally, I like the idea of charging for email...

but I think the recipient of the email should get payment for receiving it.

Would certainly stop the spammers.

It could be technologically possible for the recipient of the email to determine if the fee could be automatically refunded to the account of the sender, so listservs, friends, business associates, etc. don't have to pay.

Spam is a problem. It cannot be adequately solved by government regulations, as MANY governments have control over the people using the Internet.

The in-box on my company email (since my email address is published as a technical contact on the web) is flooded with over 500 emails per day, many of them being the exact same advertisement sent 4 times and only seconds apart, with different return addresses.

They spell Viagra with vi@gra to get around normal filtering, practically every trick in the book.

Charge them to send me email, please.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

21. That's an interesting idea...

It would keep the money grubbers from receiving unwarranted profit, and ward off spammers. I like it.

[northzax]

31. I've articulated a version of this one above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=401515&mesg_id=401532&page=

where people would recieve payment for received email, with the loophole that they could create "safe Lists" to ensure that certain email is delivered without additional charge. I don't want to charge my grandmother, you know? however, anyone selling me drugs should pay a penny for my time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. The Postal Service screwed up

Long ago, they should have set up e-mail accounts for everyone in the U.S. They could charge a nominal fee to activate it like hotmail.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Webmail comes with my Earthlink account....

Of course I pay for it--it's included with the cable connection. However, there is NO spam. None at all.

A co-worker ([e-mail]) was amazed. So Bill wants us to pay because his own company is technically lame? It's worked for him so far!

[DoNotRefill]

24. Proof that Gates is the Spawn of Satan....

I wonder what kind of commission he thinks he's going to get....

[qanda]

25. Sure, it will start out at a penny

And before you know it, it will be 37 cents per email.

[daleo]

29. Spammers would figure out a way around this

Then we would get stuck with paid email and spam. Don't ask me how they would get around this plan - they just would. It would probably involve ripping off regular persons' accounts.

[FormerOstrich]

33. This is a joke...

there are too many types of e-mail to implement anything like this globally. Perhaps, isp to isp but not net-wide.

Spammers would not spam if it did not pay. Granted with the sheer volume being sent they only need a small percentage. Thus solution #1 is to never respond.

Solution #2 is make it difficult for the spammers to obtain e-mail lists. The reason some ISPs don't receive a lot of spam is simple. They don't sell the names in convenient formats to spammers. Solution #2 restrict the sale of names. We all should give our isps holy hell for selling the lists.

The little puzzle thing is an insult. Gates must be losing it to even volley such crap.

btw.....just because it is impractical to do, does not mean they won't try. Certainly, the can create an entire sub-industry dedicated to it.....but don't count the pay checks yet because it will be outsourced.

[Don Claybrook]

35. Is Spam that much of a problem for anyone?

Is it that difficult to run a spam filter on your email client and occasionally send the unsubscribe notices to those that slipped through?

Would people really rather change the semi-anarchic and freewheeling, open nature of the Internet in order to not receive mail that they can effectively stop anyway?

I understand that Gates was talking about a time delay, but there was also mention of a 1-penny charge. As someone mentioned, once you open that floodgate, it won't be long before they increase prices, and probably regulation too.

I think this is a non-problem, largely presided-over by Congresspeople who don't have much of a clue. Yeah, the spammers are the scum of the earth and all that, but they're easily defeated.

[pauldevon]

36. Sounds like a good idea

I wonder what the potential for misuse of computer time is. If it clears the way for legitimate email marketing to actually be effective, I say its a good thing. Spammers are killing legitimate advertisers chances.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Why must WE pay to clear the way for advertising?

My e-mail (Webmail, through Earthlink) is quite spam-free. I do receive advertising from sites I've visited, where I've indicated it was not unwelcome. For example, e-bay lets me know whenever an item of interest to me comes up. Other companies I've ordered from let me know about specials. I could stop this at any time.

But my system keeps out offers from "strangers". Why should I pay for e-mail because of the technically lame?

[pauldevon]

39. We already pay.

Not that I meant that WE should have to clear the way for advertisting but if spam were reduced by 50%, we would see a decrease in ISP charges.

With so many connection options available in larger urban and not so urban areas, competition for subscribers is increasing. The ability to lower prices would be a major boon for ISP's and they would pass that savings on to the end user.

In the end, the legitimate advertisers would be the ones paying for time and paying for their ads. That is the way it should be.

Im not concerned with the end user having an inbox full of spam, I think most people figured out how to deal with that a long time ago. Im concerned about paying higher rates, especially at the upper end of the scale, T1 and T3 lines.

[Bridget Burke]

42. I'd rather pay my ISP & let them stop the spam

They do it quite well.

Why should I start paying for e-mail for the benefit of MSN.COM?

[pauldevon]

43. Here is an analogy

If everyone in your water district had to pay an additional $10 per month because a few people wanted to leave their hoses on 24/7, would you be upset?

I dont think its fair to characterize it as a benefit only for MSN or other large ISP's. Small ISP's, web hosting companies, small businesses, and subscribers all pay more than they should for the spam problem. I would rather not have to pay as much as I am right now just so the spammers get off without paying anything for their marketing.

I would gladly offer a few seconds of computer time to elimate or control the problem of spam.

[sendero]

46. Upon reflection..

... I don't think this scheme would do anything to curtail SPAM.

Most SPAM now comes from overseas servers. Are we to assume that everyone in the world that connects to the net will implement this?

Because otherwise, all it will do is make real email cost money, SPAM will still be "free" to those who do bulk mail from Borneo.

[pauldevon]

48. hmmmm

That is a good point. However, it is still relayed through US servers. Stop loss measures via a digital ID could help track offending mail servers and effectively shut them out or include them in, maybe.

More reflection, and expertise, is needed on this one.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

50. If I can spoof

If I can spoof an email addy, an IP addy or even a MAC address (hardware) I can certainly spoof a digital ID number.

[pauldevon]

52. No offense but you are not MSN

or Earthlink or AOL. Im quite sure they could devise something that would be effective, if not absolute. If money is involved, there is always a solution.

Just like the security firms in their battle with viruses, Im sure they could do more to stop it. Kinda like pest control, they dont elimiate bugs, they control them. Something like that, in whatever form it might take, would be a good start.

The overseas origin issue is a problem though.

[northzax]

57. what if everyone in you water district actually paid for the water

they actually use? instead of the current socialistic system where everyone shares the burden equally? you pay the same if you send one or 5000 emails a day. which do you think tasks the system more?> You are already paying for other people to send you unwanted email. You are paying for the systems to stop it, you are paying for the storage, the servers, the bandwidth. I'm proposing a system where people pay for what they use. why is that so bad?

Look at it this way. Say you use ISPX. In order to handle the loads of spam and other unwanted email, ISPX has to spend $100,000/year. They then split that among all their customers, right? Including you. Does that seem fair to you?

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

49. If email gets a surcharge

If email starts getting a $.01 surcharge, how long do you think it will be before that charge goes up?

Once email starts becoming a source of revenue, how long before we start having to pay for bandwidth usage on these nice cable and DSL connections?

Does anyone actually believe that paying for email will drop the price we pay for internet access?

Econ 101: Sticky Price Theory - Prices are quick to rise and VERY slow to drop.

[LiberalFighter]

54. On a different note

Pornographic websites should be required to have the www replaced with xxx to indicate it is a pornographic website.

[Hokie]

55. You Idiot, Bill Gates

You make billions on software that is bloated with features that allow Joe Blow hacker to cripple it with viruses and now you propose a tax to fix the very problem you created. Bill, get a life, we will put up with spam before we will pay your email tax.