It seems a funny thing happened in the Senate late last year. The ban on taxes on Internet access was expiring and an extension had breezed through the House of Representatives by voice vote. It was supposed to be a quick vote in the Senate then on to the President’s desk. But it never passed the Senate. In the end, it appears that concerns that new definitions would expanded tax breaks for the telecommunications industry.

As noted in last month’s column, a previous federal law had banned state and local governments from imposing new taxes on Internet access. That ban expired last fall, but since most state legislatures were also on breaks. So, no states seem to have taken advantage of the expiration to actually impose new taxes..

Congress did get something accomplished however. It did adopt the comprehensive federal attempt to control unsolicited commercial and pornographic email.  It is usually referred to as the CAN-SPAM Act. (Only a bureaucrat would give it the official ‘short title’ of “Controlling The Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003.”) Although it has been criticized it may be better than nothing—that is what we’ve had at the federal level.

Most of the criticism of the bill centers around three aspects of the final bill.

• First, it incorporates an opt-out scheme instead of requiring that a person explicitly grant permission before receiving unsolicited email.
• Second, it pre-empts or invalidates stronger state laws. California, for instance, had recently adopted much tougher legislation that will not be enforceable after the effective date of the CAN-SPAM act.
• Third, it limits the right to enforce its provisions.

Of course there is also an overall complaint that many spammers will ignore it because they operate from foreign countries.

There is one unique aspect of the act that may actually do some good. In some instances the authorities can enforce the act against the spammer’s clients. In other words if you hire a spammer to advertise your product or service, you may also be in trouble if there is a violation of the law.

Not all email or Internet use falls under the control of the act. It deals with commercial electronic mail messages. Those are defined as, “

Section 5 of the act makes it unlawful if a person sends

The legislation also directs the Federal Trade Commission to study the need for and feasibility of setting up a No-Spam list that would be similar in function to the better-known No-call list. The Federal Trade Commission is given six months to study the matter and make a recommendation.

The bill makes some common practices unlawful. Address harvesting on the Internet is now subject to the act. It also restricts the sale or exchange of a person’s email address after the recipient does not want to receive further electronic mail from the sender. That attacks a common practice of selling the address for a higher price than before because it is then verified as a valid, current address. (In case you wondered, and I did, your personal email address is worth between six and ten cents for a one-time rental of legitimate opt-in lists. For a commercial address the rate is between ten and forty cents. I found those facts at a very informative article, How to Comply with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 on the act by Dr. Ralph Wilson on the Web Marketing Today website.

What are the risks if someone violates the act? Good question that has a very complicated answer. In some cases it could get you five years in the federal penitentiary if you violate some of the provisions. In other cases you can be sued by the Federal Trade Commission, a state Attorney General or even an Internet Service provider. The act establishes a system of minimum penalties for each unlawful message. In some cases it is $250 per addressee with a $2 million dollar limit.

Clearly there is much more to learn about this new law. By all accounts the ultimate solution will require international action. In the meantime, we’ll still be deleting all those pesky messages.