<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>rare pattern</title>
  <subtitle>thoughts in a blog</subtitle>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2006/02/is-anyone-flocking-to-aol-and-yahoo-now"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://rarepattern.com/node/28/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://rarepattern.com/node/28/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2006-02-10T10:48:36-06:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Is anyone flocking to AOL and Yahoo now?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2006/02/is-anyone-flocking-to-aol-and-yahoo-now" />
    <id>http://rarepattern.com/nodes/2006/02/is-anyone-flocking-to-aol-and-yahoo-now</id>
    <published>2006-02-10T10:48:29-06:00</published>
    <updated>2006-02-10T10:48:36-06:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Laura Scott</name>
    </author>
    <category term="business" />
    <category term="Cluetrain" />
    <category term="internet" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I just don't get it. When I read that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?adxnnl=1&amp;adxnnlx=1139235000-Si7QeUhaSLhxg/rqfR8Ajg">AOL and Yahoo were going to start charging the world to send email to their users</a>, I guess I just couldn't believe they'd be so dumb. It sounded like an urban legend, even though published in the New York Times.</p>
<p>Already, though, people I know are suddenly not receiving their emails ... from friends, from email lists to which they've subscribed.... Is this supposed to be a benefit?</p>
<p>I can say that I am not inclined to ever pay AOL or Yahoo or anyone else a toll so I can send one of their subscribers a message. We'll find other ways to communicate.</p>
<p>But some people will pay for that access: <strong>spammers</strong>. Why? Because they send messages as part of their business plan. It's all about money, and all AOL and Yahoo have done is increase their cost of doing business. Meanwhile, <em>real</em> messages get blocked, held up, lost.</p>
<p>I guess "a better internet" is one where AOL charges for what most everyone else does for free.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I just don't get it. When I read that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?adxnnl=1&amp;adxnnlx=1139235000-Si7QeUhaSLhxg/rqfR8Ajg">AOL and Yahoo were going to start charging the world to send email to their users</a>, I guess I just couldn't believe they'd be so dumb. It sounded like an urban legend, even though published in the New York Times.</p>
<p>Already, though, people I know are suddenly not receiving their emails ... from friends, from email lists to which they've subscribed.... Is this supposed to be a benefit?</p>
<p>I can say that I am not inclined to ever pay AOL or Yahoo or anyone else a toll so I can send one of their subscribers a message. We'll find other ways to communicate.</p>
<p>But some people will pay for that access: <strong>spammers</strong>. Why? Because they send messages as part of their business plan. It's all about money, and all AOL and Yahoo have done is increase their cost of doing business. Meanwhile, <em>real</em> messages get blocked, held up, lost.</p>
<p>I guess "a better internet" is one where AOL charges for what most everyone else does for free.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
