October 4, 2007 4:01 AM PDT

FCC asked to mandate 'e-mail address portability'

The Federal Communications Commission is being asked to do a remarkably silly thing: create mandatory "e-mail address portability."

The idea is that because the U.S. Post Office offers to forward physical mail, and because FCC rules require telephone service providers to offer number portability, the same principle should be extended to e-mail accounts.

Here are some excerpts from the petition to the FCC asking for an immediate rulemaking:

In today's world, many individuals and businesses depend just as heavily on their e-mail addresses as on their phone numbers as public points of contact with the larger world. One's e-mail address is a key component of the small matrix of characteristics which forms our public identity: one's name, one's address, one's phone number, and one's e-mail address. This is how the world knows who we are and how to contact us. E-mail addresses are now customarily included on letterheads, resumes and Web sites. The loss of an e-mail address is therefore a crushing blow to any business since not only does all the collateral material have to be discarded, but all the good will that has been generated over the years with that address can be lost in a second if the address is terminated.

The solution to this problem is clear: require ISPs to port e-mail traffic to new e-mail addresses designated by customers. There is no technical reason at all why an e-mail sent to "customer@aol.com" could not be automatically forwarded by AOL to "customer'snewaddress@yahoo.com." This would require none of the technical re-tooling which LNP entailed and could be implemented almost immediately. This simple measure would provide the American public--both consumers and the business community--with the basic confidence that their personal or business identity cannot be destroyed at the whim of their ISP.

The petition was filed by Gail Mortenson, a freelance writer in Washington, D.C., who had a run-in with AOL customer service when she tried to stop paying monthly service charges (some AOL services like e-mail are now free). Mortenson says her AOL account was unceremoniously closed after she disclosed to AOL customer service that her son had been a minor when he opened it.

Now, I admit that AOL was being unreasonable, but that doesn't mean the FCC needs to get involved. So just why is Mortenson's proposal silly? Let me count the ways:

1. If you're running any kind of business, even a freelance writing business, it's naive to use an AOL, Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail address. This will be your online identity for the foreseeable future, and you don't know if those companies will be around (or if you'll like their e-mail clients or annual fees) a decade from now. Buy your own domain name for around $10 a year instead.

2. E-mail is not the telephone system. The way e-mail forwarding works is for the message to be received by address1@aol.com, which AOL's mail transport agent forwards to address2@yahoo.com. If the customer switches accounts a second time, the message would be forwarded from AOL to Yahoo and on again to address3@gmail.com. Any message to address1 would bounce through three different e-mail providers--a horrifically inefficient delivery route. It also introduces more ways for delivery to fail; if even one e-mail provider in the chain is having network difficulties, email to address1 won't get through.

3. E-mail is free. Let's keep it that way. By that I mean companies like Yahoo and Microsoft offer us no-cost e-mail services in exchange for sending us ads. If they're forced by FCC edict to be a free e-mail forwarding service and they can't make any money at it, they may be less likely to offer free e-mail (or generous mailbox sizes) in the first place.

4. Domain names are portable but e-mail addresses are not. Internet engineers refer to the "protocol stack," and a similar concept applies to policy matters too. If you own a domain name and don't like your registrar or hosting provider, you can take your business elsewhere in a highly competitive market. E-mail addresses are the wrong level of the policy stack to target.

5. The FCC probably does not have the authority to do this. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wouldn't let the FCC get away with mandating the broadcast flag, why would it let the FCC get away with mandating the even more dubious requirement of e-mail portability?

6. E-mail portability already exists in some forms. Gmail offers e-mail forwarding. So does Pobox.com, for $20 a year. There's nothing stopping other services from using e-mail forwarding (perhaps for a year after a customer closes his account) to differentiate themselves from their rivals. Or from coming up with Internetwide standards if there's sufficient customer demand.

7. There's no market failure. Not only is pre-emptive regulation rarely wise, but it's extra double-plus unwise when there's no market failure, a term some economists use to describe when the free market is inefficient because of, say, imperfect competition. Buying your own domain name is a counterpoint to any alleged market failure. Besides, getting the FCC involved is much more likely to lead to what's known as a government failure.

I have no inside knowledge about whether the FCC will take Mortenson seriously enough to start a formal proceeding. But stranger things have happened in Washington, and sometimes shining a bright light on silly proposals is the best way to ensure they quietly expire in the dark.

Recent posts from News - Politics and Law
Google and 'Vanity Fair' party with the GOP
Video: Republican convention, day 4 recap
What you can--and can't--find about Palin on the Internet
McCain talks up oil drilling, green energy
Comcast appeals FCC traffic-blocking ruling
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 38 comments (Showing first 20 comments)
This would be very costly, in more ways than one.
by rcrusoe October 4, 2007 6:00 AM PDT
Who would pay for the additional bandwidth and storage (logging, etc) costs to provide "email address portability"?

And would email verification techniques like SPF and Domain Keys still work? My first thought is they would not. A regulation like this would be a spammer's dream.

Let's hope the PTB in the FCC are wise enough to tell Ms. Mortenson no.
Reply to this comment View reply
Nose under the tent
by nicmart October 4, 2007 7:17 AM PDT
Up to the now the Internet has been relatively free of government
meddling in the U.S. As a result we have the freest and cheapest
form of mass communication ever created. But start encouraging
politicians to get involved and the trickle will become a deluge.
Freedom and diversity will sink and costs will rise.

I am not a child and I don't need the government to handle my
email accounts for me.
Reply to this comment View reply
the solution is simple:
by vanillacokehead October 4, 2007 7:23 AM PDT
Never use an ISP-based provider for a primary personal email address. It's easy enough to get a freemail address, one that can be used from anywhere and stays the same no matter where one gets internet access.

To me, it seems like common sense. The FCC proposal to make e-mail addresses "portable" is stupid. The proposal would put an unreasonable, expensive, and unnecessary burden on ISPs.

My primary personal email address has been with Gmail for more than two years - and my ISP-provided email address automatically forwards to that one.

IMO, with all the other options out there now, the ISP-provided email address is on the road to becoming obsolete. It wouldn't surprise me five or 10 years from now if ISPs stop providing email as a standard feature of their internet connectivity services.
Reply to this comment View reply
Email Forwarding
by ajhpayne October 4, 2007 7:42 AM PDT
I think that the ability to forward mail from a free account like gmail or hotmail might be useful, however since it's a free account why change...

I can't see why companies or ISP's should be expected to forward mail for you when you leave them... Oh, so you don't want to pay for AOL any more, you are switching to Comcast, but you still want us to maintain your email account and forward your mail? I don't think so...

The need to change email address when switching ISP's happens. You relocate, a better ISP comes along etc. But why rely on the email address that an ISP provides! It's so cheap today to register your own doman and get your own email address - or even addresses for the whole family (or small business). Even if you don't want to set up a web site, the cost of $15 or less per year to register an email address and $7 or less for hosting is well worth it in my opinion. Using a company like Godaddy.com is even cheaper if you just want email. And you get POP mail as well as webmail included.

So, having your own domain, you can move anywhere in the world, change ISP as many times as you want, continually expand the list of email addresses on your domain (if you have more kids etc), and never have to change your email address.

Just seems so easy to do.......
My 50cents worth for the day...
Reply to this comment
Compare email to post office
by dgiamanco October 4, 2007 7:59 AM PDT
The comparison between email and post office doesn't make sense. This is like saying if you live in an apartment and decide to move, that the old apartment should be the one to forward your mail. This doesn't happen. You have the post office transfer the mail, which would be the equivalent to having a government router/proxy change the headers to redirect an email to a new address. This would open all kinds of doors for the government to peer into the lives of citizens and put us in a situation similar to China and the great firewall.
Reply to this comment View reply
This is stupid
by mikalg October 4, 2007 8:07 AM PDT
I totally agree with the writer. Free email addresses should not be ported to another free address service, or a paid one either. This burdens the ISP for no reason. If anyone wants a personal address that they can control, all they need is a domain. This is NOT a telephone number that you can not control and have no easy access to yourself without a carrier.
Reply to this comment View reply
nice...
by joser358 October 4, 2007 9:08 AM PDT
I also think email portability is ridiculous, but I couldn't help but notice the 1984 reference there, "extra double-plus unwise?" Very nice.

However, News.com using "news"peak is a little frightening though. :)
Reply to this comment
Answer is easy.....pay for portability
by bikerinpa October 4, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
I wonder if Ms. Mortenson would pay $10 or 420 a year to keep her old email address? Surely that is worth something. AOL and others should not have to shoulder this cost only to pass it along to those who enjoy free email. If she wants an AOL address bad enough, she should pay for it. The question is, how badly does she want it?
Reply to this comment View reply
This is really stupid
by jh0007 October 4, 2007 9:12 AM PDT
enough said.
Reply to this comment View reply
where was the FCC ...
by jture October 4, 2007 9:27 AM PDT
... when my email address changed three times in two years because my ISP kept being sold/merged into larger and larger conglomerates? It went from MediaOne.net to attbi.com to comcast.net, and there wasn't a thing I could do about it other than sign up with another service (which wasn't an option - the company that became Comcast had the only viable broadband service in my area).
Reply to this comment View reply
I respectfully disagree with the author!
by 10082005 October 4, 2007 9:45 AM PDT
I disagree with the author on this. I think you totally overestimate a large percentage of the email using population. At this point they are just lucky someone helped them get outlook express configured.
Many don't know what a domain is, much less how to actually register one themselves. Free email is what they SHOULD use(hotmail, gmail, yahoo etc), but they don't realize it. They sign up for internet thru Aol or whoever and the ISP (AOL in this case) tells them "here is your email address" and they take it as gospel and go on their merry little way. They start getting comfortable at home being able to fire up outlook express (or maybe their favorite to their ISP's webmail page if they are lucky) and life is good for a while.
Then 1-2 years later, they decide dialup is not cutting it, or their internet is slow and they change ISP's or they move and can't get the same ISP. Suddenly its a crisis...what do you mean I can't have the same email address???!!!!!! I've given it to all my customers, friends, family, put it on my business card, advertised on yellow pages with it, I can REMEMBER IT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!....sorry...I was enjoying the part too much.
Please, save the nieve(sp?)...advise them to get a hotmail/gmail/yahoo account now.
however, back to the article at hand, I suggest mandating that ISP's forward email for 30 days. It costs the ISP virtually NO resources.
Reply to this comment
silly
by Malenx October 4, 2007 9:59 AM PDT
And what happens when sally@aol.com moves to sally@yahoo.com? Does the current Sally@yahoo.com have to bow down and let her take over? If it's not already taken, why wouldn't she just register the new service anyways? I'm surprised the author of this article didn't mention this.

This woman doesn't understand anything about technology, this isn't even news.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
hasn't bigfoot.com offered this for over 10 years
by Raabscuttle October 4, 2007 10:01 AM PDT
It seems to me that bigfoot.com has offered a free e-mail forwarding service for over 10 years. I believe that is how long I've had my free bigfoot.com address that I just forward to whatever new ISP I have.
Reply to this comment
To assume no cost factor indicates a lack of knowledge
by Dolphie1 October 4, 2007 10:07 AM PDT
Most of us have ISP generated email addresses. The ISP operates the email server with which to allow us access to our email. To require every ISP out there to serve up the email of other ISPs is a huge amount of overload and it opens the doors exponentially to spammers.
Most of us know that domain email will follow us - ISP email will not.
Granted - the response on the part of AOL was immature and unprofessional at best.
When you move from a physical address - you must continuously renew your forwarding address or your mail will not arrive at its new destination. Me, as the new tenant, should not have to deal with your sloppiness relative to notifying those who snail mail you.
The expense involved will be passed down to us. We prefer to keep the Internet free and we prefer to maintain an ever learning atmosphere rather than a dumbing down atmosphere.
Reply to this comment
Devil's advocacy
by punstress October 4, 2007 11:33 AM PDT
I am not necessarily saying the gov't should get involved, but a pay e-mail service, as this apparently was, should provide forwarding for at least 30 days. It's not like they're going to reuse that address so quickly; usually there's a little wait before they put it back in the pool of available names. In the ensuing 30 days, you can notify people of the change and the traffic should go down. But as it is now, people are afraid to give up accounts they pay for if their messages won't be forwarded. You end up paying for an additional month or two or more just because that's the e-mail everyone uses.
Reply to this comment
22 comments before I jumped in...
by Bob H in NPR October 4, 2007 1:14 PM PDT
...& not one valid reason for govt mandated forwarded email, but many to oppose it..

I agree with the author on this issue. There are plenty of free email providers out there which are not affiliated with an ISP. They are also generally more generous with storage, have many more bells & whistles to play with, & are much more secure.

I have changed addresses (& had them changed against my will), phone numbers, bank accounts & numbers, many times over my lifetime. Changing email addresses has always been the easiest to change by far. It ain't broke so let's not fix it. OK?
Reply to this comment
Bogus argument
by DMDirector October 4, 2007 2:58 PM PDT
The whole "cost to business" argument to support forwarding is bogus. It's true that many businesses include email addresses on their stationery and literature. It also happens to be true that, unless they are very small businesses, they are not using AOL or Hotmail accounts. They already have the own domain names -- and may have for a decade.

Smaller businesses (such as, perhaps, Ms. Mortenson) who might use such accounts are generally not in the habit of buying large stocks of stationery. And they would as likely move to a new office as change their email address. Again, the argument won't wash.

To be fair, it costs a bit more than the $10 domain registration fee, as most ISPs will not host the domain for you. But basic hosting, including multiple email accounts and Web space, and more other stuff than most small businesses will ever need, can be had for about $50 a year, including the domain.

I would suggest that the cost of email address changes -- which are (contrary to Ms. Mortenson's case) generally voluntary -- is simply part of the cost of doing business.
Reply to this comment View reply
My feet hurt...
by gdongarra October 5, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
Should I whine to the FCC about it....
Reply to this comment
FCC, Email...
by vladimir.orlovsky October 5, 2007 4:08 PM PDT
Actually,this is Not bad idea.
I would extend it a little bit more...
It will be nice to have Global-Email-and-small-Web-space (~ 1-2 MB) for all 6+ Billion of people. The time is right! ... 21 century!
4vladimir@gmail.com
Reply to this comment
Learn how the system works!
by olduser99 October 5, 2007 4:38 PM PDT
I'm sorry, but I think people need to learn how computer systems work. If you know that this would be a non-issue...

Now I've been on e-mail since 1995. I've changed e-mail addresses at least 10 times since then. It's really easy to just send an e-mail saying here is my new address....

Over that time... One company changed their domain name because of a merger. Now you expect them to keep that domain alive.... Don't think so...

Bottom line.... For a price you can have whatever you want... Thanks to some idiot that wanted the same phone number I get to pay a fee. No thanks.

I'd rather see net neutrality... Than this convenience for a few....
Reply to this comment
 See all 38 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

About News - Politics and Law

Lead contributor Declan McCullagh has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this."

Add this feed to your online news reader

News - Politics and Law topics

Featured blogs

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
  • Nanotech: The Circuits Blog

    Intel ships low-power chips for servers

    New server chips from processor giant draw as little as 12.5 watts per core.

  • Gallery

    Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week

    Here are CNET Reviews' 10 favorite items from the past week, including the TiVo HD XL, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50, and the Dish Network's newest digital TV converter box.

  • News - Apple

    Apple watchers spot 'iPod Nano' pix, iTunes hints

    The rumor mill has long been predicting a longer, leaner new version of the iPod Nano, and now it's conjuring up some pictures.

  • Coop's Corner

    Chris Shipley 1, Internet lynch mob 0

    Demo's impresario goes public with a tart and smartly written riposte to the shoot-from-the-lip crowd.

  • Video

    Katie Couric reflects on first Webcast

    The political conventions are over and so are CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric's first series of Webcasts. CNET's Kara Tsuboi sat down with Couric on the final night of the Republican National Convention to discuss what she liked about Webcasting, some of her most memorable guests, and whether TV news will still be around by the next round of conventions.

  • Webware

    Google upgrades Gmail for IE 6 users

    The online e-mail application is faster for those using the seven-year-old browser and gets features already available to more modern browsers, Google said.

  • Video

    YouTube plays party politics

    During the presidential campaigning four years ago, YouTube didn't even exist. Now it's a tool candidates must master to get their message across. CNET's Kara Tsuboi stops by the YouTube upload booths at the Democratic and Republican conventions to find out why Google's video site has such a big presence in Denver and St. Paul, Minn.

  • News - Gaming and Culture

    Are Demo and TechCrunch50 fragmenting their audiences?

    With both events scheduled to start Monday, many press, as well as venture capitalists and others are having to choose which one to attend.

  • News - Cutting Edge

    Execs predict next Google-like tech

    On eve of company's 10-year anniversary, researchers and business pundits speculate about what technologies might someday have as much impact as Google.

  • Gallery

    Images: The art of 'Spore' prototypes

    Will Wright and his Maxis team worked on dozens of prototypes to test the elements of their soon-to-be-released evolution game. Here's a sampling.

  • Webware

    DemoFall preview: 10 to watch

    If you can only watch 10 pitches from DemoFall, these would be good ones.

  • Green Tech

    TI does energy efficiency on a chip

    Its line of Piccolo microcontrollers can reduce power consumption significantly of home appliances, hybrid cars, LED lighting, and even solar panels.