I had a long conversation over the weekend with a friend on my blogroll. We didn't meet and we didn't speak, but we still managed a lengthy gossip about 'stuff' through the miraculous medium of email. Had we communicated by letter, it would have cost a fortune and I'd still be waiting for a reply to my first question. Had we communicated by telephone, everybody in earshot could have listened in and I could never have sent that really useful weblink. And had we communicated by text message, we'd never have written anywhere near as many words and it would have cost us both over two quid for the privilege. So hurrah for email! Instant, efficient, versatile, and above all free.
Yes, possibly the most amazing thing about email is that it's still free. OK, so there are costs attached to being online in the first place, but every individual email message still wings its way across the worldwide web for nothing. You can send as many emails as you like, as often as you like, as far as you like, and the only cost is your time. That'll be because our global email infrastructure evolved through the technological community, not via big business. Nobody was out to make a quick buck, so access started out (and remains) universal and unrestricted. Unlike, for example, text messaging, whose potential for generating profit was spotted relatively early and continues to be exploited. Mobile phone companies delight in charging us half the price of a stamp just to send 160 characters by SMS, and far more if we dare to attach even a grainy photo. So we think twice before we send off a volley of text messages, because they cost. If the majority of business communication was by text message instead of email, companies would go bust.
But free email has one major drawback - spam. If evil spamlords need pay nothing to send out a million Vi@gra emails, then just one positive response from one dysfunctional purchaser is sufficient for the whole mammoth mailout to prove profitable. And so, it's justbeen announced, AOL and Yahoo! are planning to introduce a charge for those wishing to send emails to their customers. It's only a tiny charge, less than a penny, and they're not forcing anybody to pay it, but you'll get preferential treatment if you do. It's a bit like having first and second class email. Paid-for commercial emails will arrive speedily in customers inboxes with a 'certified' flag, unsullied by cleansing spam filters. Meanwhile 'second class' free emails from uncertified email addresses will be directed straight into junk folders, safely out of sight. Messages from friends and family will still get through, but emails from addresses unknown to the recipient will be diverted. That should put the spammers out of business, then.
So, is it just me who's mightily troubled by this seemingly innocent development? If I send an email to an AOL or Yahoo! address, I want to know that it's going to be delivered. Not all email from unknown addresses is spam, and I wouldn't want a service provider censoring my mail on a whim. AOL customers making purchases online will soon risk having their confirmation emails delayed or deleted. Genuine companies with established mailing lists are no doubt mighty peeved that, unless they sign up with AOL partners Goodmail by the end of June, they risk having their emails junked and ignored. Meanwhile any businesses willing to pay the new charges can fast-track their spammiest marketing mailouts direct into customers mailboxes, with visible AOL/Yahoo! approval. It's almost legitimised corporate blackmail.
There are many established ways to fight spam, so why should AOL and Yahoo opt for a 'monetized solution' which, conveniently, will also rake them in a tidy profit? I fear that this may be the first greedy little sign that the days of free email are, possibly, ultimately, numbered. Perhaps you'd better spend the day sending fifty gossipy emails to your mates while you still can.
