Subject: Fw: Proposed e-mail charges!!!
> > > > > > >> Subject: For friends in the States
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> VOTE NO ON Bill 602P!!!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The warnings were true. Federal Bill 602P 5-cents per E-mail
> > sent.
> > > It
> > > > > > >> figures! No more free E-mail! We knew this was coming!!
> > > > > > >> 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 ServiceProviders 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 thatthis 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
> > > > > > >> efficiency. 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.
> > > > > > >> Our congressional representative, Tony Schnell ® 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!
> > > > > > >> Send this to E-mail to EVERYONE on your list, and
> > > > > > >> tell all your friends and relatives write their
> > > > > > >> congressional representative and say “NO” to Bill 602P.
> > > > > > >> It will only take a few moments of your time and could very
> well
> > be
> > > > > > >> instrumental in killing a bill we do not want.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please forward!
>
>
It’s a complete fabrication. before I even knew about web pages like Snopes, I got this email from someone, and did some digging. There has never been a Bill 602P in either the Senate or the House (senate bills start with an S, House bills start with an H, I think). There has never been a representative named Tony Schnell in either body either. Not to mention the fact that the USPS has nothing to do with email at all.
This is a very old and particularly smelly piece of bullshit. Let’s take just a quick look at the bill number, 602P, which is a dead giveaway. The U.S. legislature numbers bills according to their house of origin. All bills generated in the House of Reps will be in this form, HR-XXXX, while Senate bills are numbered S-XXXX. I’ve also seen this attributed to the Canadian Parliament. Additionally you can go to the USPS homepage and do a search for “602P” and they’ll tell you it’s crap, too.
General rule of thumb: any email containing the line “Send this to E-mail to EVERYONE on your list” should be considered a hoax until verified, preferably via the aformentioned http://snopes.com.
The snopes article doesn’t mention the number one reason why the post office would not want to mess with the internet. (As if they could) Money. The USPS delivers the majority of e-commerce purchases. (In the USA) An e-mail tax would discourage net use, reduce e-commerce, and ultimately hurt the USPS.
Just an observation, but most of my internet purchases (mainly Amazon.com) come via UPS, a private corporation in direct competition with the USPS. While I know ‘602P’ is an outright hoax, some future regulation isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. After all, the USPS already has a complete monopoly on non-urgent first-class mail, most physical mail sent in this country, in that it is against the law to provide a similar service in this country. The USPS enforces this rather well.
In an odd way, the internet has given me more reason to us the Postal service. At message boards I make friends in other states, exchange e-mails, and inevitably at some point we start sending each other care packages. If it weren’t for the internet I’d only use the post office for bills and Christmas cards.
I can understand how the hoaxster came to his conclusion, but in reality I don’t think the postal service has been hurt one iota by e-mail.
Besides, we’re already paying for e-mail through ISPs and the phone companies. I can’t see how the USPS would be able to justify muscling in if they don’t own any of the phone lines or servers.
I went to college with a guy who if you called a Conspiracy Theorist would be understating it. I made the mistake of mentioning my opposition to gun control so he immediately made me out to be a conspiracy theorist as well. I get an email at least once a month from him on this subject.
Even if a governing body wanted to do this, how in the heck could it ever be enforced?
I don’t have a firm cite on this. However, I did hear that the USPS had the majority of e-commerce deliveries on some news piece about e-commerce. That may or may not be true, but even if it is not true, the USPS is still getting a big chunk business from e-commerce, which would have otherwise earned the USPS nothing as the consumer would have carried their purchases home from the store. Of course, there was always (well not always) mail order, but I think e-commerce is at least an order of magnitude bigger than mail order ever was.
I don’t think this is true. The largest online retailer is in the red by millions while Lilian Vernon, e.g., is making something like 2 billion a year (I just read something on her.)
That’s substantially correct. 10% of all retail sales in the USA (approximately) are made through some version of mail-order (mostly through catalogs). Internet sales are growing, but are nowhere near that level (though I’d expect the two will end up sharing the same 15-25% of the retail pie by the time Internet retailing is mature).
Of course, the question of what percent of mail-order purchases are sent via USPS vs. UPS, FedEx, Airborne, and all the other couriers (local bicycle delivery, anyone?) is a tougher question to answer. But the USPS is certainly getting a big piece of the pie; they’re reasonably dependable and, in most cases, the cheapest delivery channel.
