Hi,
Just couldn't resist commenting. I work for the USPS and if they could charge
for e-mail they probably would. The truth is that they are thinking of puting
e-mail access at the Post Office so that you can send e-mail from there. But
as usual they are years late and by the time they study it to death, the phone
companies will be offering free e-mail, send/receive services with your monthly
phone service. The USPS had the opportunity to put in coin opperated fax
machines in their lobbies about 10 or 15 years ago. They studied it. . .maybe
they are still studying it. To date they haven't done a thing. They are so
forward looking!
LOL
Shirley
Firedraake wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:12:39 -0500, Athena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which said:
>
> > Subject: Email Charge
> [...]
> > Postal Service will be attempting to bill email users out of "alternate
> > postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt. to charge a 5
> > cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service
> > Providers at source.
> > The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP.
>
> First of all, this has already been discovered as a hoax.
>
> > Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent
> > this legislation from becoming law. The U.S. Postal Service is
> > claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing
> > nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year.
>
> Costing? Or is it simply a drop in sales?
>
> > The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference.
>
> Democracy? My god I hope not. It's democracy that made America what it is
> today -- a horrible country. Right now the internet is a chaotic
> free-for-all and it should remain that way. There are no votes to decide
> which way the internet goes. You simply have the right as an individual to
> built a website that reflects you and what you want to say. The internet
> changes slightly with everything you publish. Already there are moves
> being made to censor what people can say on the internet. That's not
> democracy -- it's a violation of the first amendment. I think people
> should be able to say whatever they want. If someone else feels that it's
> "irresponsible" for someone to say something that might not be true, then
> it leaves it up to the person reading it as to whether or not they believe
> it.
>
> I got numerous e-mails concerning a news article that I forwarded about a
> bunch of women getting off on a nude statue of Jesus with an erection. I
> didn't point out that the article was satire, and many people wrote me to
> tell me how irresponsible I was. The same thing happened with an article
> about the government moving to abolish the right of the American people to
> vote. The government, according to the story, was going to take away our
> right to vote and give it to the people of Canada, Switzerland, Sweden and
> Denmark in attempts to get America back on track. I didn't point out that
> the article came from a satirical newspaper, partially because I didn't
> know.
>
> My whole point is, if the buyer can beware when making purchases, then the
> reader can beware when reading usenet articles. I post'em like I find'em.
> If one wants to see it as a lie, that's his/her choice. If someone else
> sees the same thing as comical, that's his choice, too. People do it to
> themselves. Something scares them and then they want a law enacted to
> protect themselves from being spooked like that again. They're giving
> their own responsibility to the government to take care of them. Why can't
> people just grow up and take care of themselves?
>
> [...]
> > It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New
> > York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with
> > email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States.
> > One congressman, Tony Schnell (r) has even suggested a "twenty to forty
> > dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the
> > government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major
> > newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the
> > Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept
> > who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch
> > your freedoms erode away!
>
> Perhaps that may be a good thing. If this happens to be true, then perhaps
> a loss of unlimited e-mail services would mean that we would have to resort
> to person to person channeling, psychic interactions, etc... and the
> government can't tax that. There's no way. <g>
>
> > Send this email to all Americans on your list and tell your friends and
> > relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P.
>
> One of the representatives said that there's no such numbering system to
> accommodate 602P. It doesn't fit into their scheme.
>
> Firedraake
