Recently I read an article on the Houston Chronicle web site that talks about Internet giants AOL and Yahoo offering a "paid" e-mail service. (at last sighting it could be found here).

The article points out that this is a way to help companies send mass e-mails without them being blocked by spam filters. It also helps us, the lowly consumer-level e-mail recipients, to block spam more readily.

There's a concept in philosophical thinking called a "slippery slope." The underlying idea of a slippery slope philosophy is that one event can lead to a whole series of catastrophic events. For example, if you allow one member of a satanic cult to move into the neighborhood then soon he'll bring friends and soon after that every cat in the neighborhood disappears and soon after that children start to go missing and then it's wanton human sacrifice and dancing nude in the streets under a full moon. Slippery slope reasoning isn't always the best approach to looking at a problem.

However, there are times when it's perfectly acceptable to engage in a little slippery slope thinking, just to imagine the ultimate outcome of something. Let's do a little now...

When Yahoo and AOL (owned by Time Warner) initiate this program it's going to set a precedent. Now, there will be a perfectly legitimate excuse for charging for e-mail. In the article, they've already pointed out that the U.S. Post Office already does this and that they have "special rates" for ensuring a letter or package gets to where it's going. The special rate that AOL charges, then, would be for ensuring that your e-mail absolutely makes it to where it's going, guaranteed or your money back.

The implication, of course, is that there is no such guarantee for non-paid e-mails. And in fact, since AOL and Yahoo will be paid for their guaranteed delivery, why should they bother keeping up the old system at all? As a non-paying customer, my e-mail issues aren't as important as those of, say, HP or Target. So one possible outcome is that with no attention spent on the "freebie" service, it will start to atrophy. As time goes by, it will become increasingly less reliable until the only way to get an e-mail through is to pay "digital postage."

Another facet is that now that two giants are tossing this ball around, it sets the stage for smaller companies to start this policy. How long before someone finally says, "We will only accept e-mail that has digital postage?" Or "We will only allow e-mail to be sent if it has digital postage?" In other words, it's only a matter of time before companies latch on to this idea as a way to make MORE money - and they'll do it under the guise of, "We're looking out for your interests. This is the only way to prevent spam!" Another case of the little guy having to suck it up and take the poison that's for their own good.

Another angle - free e-mail has opened up the boundaries between countries and cultures all over the world. It is now possible for me to communicate and collaborate with someone an ocean away in real time. If a charge is enforced on my e-mails, I'm gong to be far less likely to wantonly contact someone about just any topic. Since one topic usually leads to another, and these sometimes lead to some business for me, enforcing a charge on my e-mails now costs me even MORE money.

Not to mention, once these guys start charging the additional fees will start piling up. How long before the government figures out that there's money being made and they aren't getting a piece of it? Here come the e-mail taxes. And what about sending e-mail overseas? Will there be an additional fee for that?

Since the companies do not SPEND any additional money on handling e-mail, it seems strange that they can justify in any way CHARGING additional money for it. Instead of a per e-mail charge, why not do something truly revolutionary? How about charging companies for certificates instead? If it's really to block spam and viruses, then a certificate system similar to those used on secure web sites might be the best option. To avoid having your e-mail caught in spam filters, your company pays for a license or certificate that gets attached to every e-mail. If that certificate is missing, your e-mail may be blocked. But if it's there, it's guaranteed to get through.

Now, this assumes a couple of things...

One, the person on the other end will have to have an e-mail client that can read and regulate the certificates. This means that Outlook, Netscape, Mozilla and all the rest would have to design some sort of plug-in or update for existing e-mail clients. A small cost to them, but it could add up to big, sweeping changes and better e-mail systems later.

Two, the person on the other end will have to WANT to receive the e-mail, otherwise they could just block the certificate. If that happens, take your ball and go home. The "guaranteed" part shouldn't apply if the person doesn't want the e-mail.

This certificate idea has merit. If they could sell the certificates cheap enough, regular people might buy them for their personal domains. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would probably buy them so that e-mail sent through THEIR servers could go through.

The advantage to this system is that no one would be able to use a phony e-mail address to send spam or viruses. If the certificate doesn't match, it's automatically flagged and blocked.

The idea has merit. Now we just have to convince the major companies out there that this is the way to go. Instead of paying per e-mail, let's agree to make one-time payments for certificates that keep the system from being abused. This is something that should be handled by the Internic or the domain registration companies. It's not a profit system, it's meant only for verification and protection from abusers of the existing system.

I guess what it comes down to is this - I don't trust AOL and Yahoo to do what they propose without abusing it. It WILL be abused. Eventually, when people figure out that there's a way to profit on something that was once offered for free, it will be the California Gold Rush all over again. The digital landscape will be strip-mined until there's nothing left. At least what I'm proposing will actually be beneficial to EVERYONE, not just large corporations. And the opportunities for abuse are far less than those in the per-use e-mail scheme that's being proposed.

If you like this idea, let me know. And not just me, tell the important people in the world. Congressmen, senators, governors, even the President. Tell big business execs and small business owners. Get the word out on it before we find ourselves in a per-use world with no escape.

J. Kevin Tumlinson is the editor of ViewOnline Magazine. You can reach him at kevin@viewonline.com. He is also a producer and writer for Hat Digital Media. Kevin is charging every time someone looks at him funny.