Ohio University students might have noticed an increase in their technology fees this year and wondered where, exactly, the extra money was going. Don't feel bad - the University doesn't know what to do with the funds either.
Following a 6 percent tuition increase, the maximum allowed by the state, the Ohio University Board of Trustees decided to also raise technology fees by 3.9 percent. The money from these fees, totaling about $1.1 million, has yet to be distributed and no plan for allocating the funds has been made. The Board of Trustees should not have increased this fee without clear direction of what to do with it. Charging students extra money for the sake of padding the bank is unacceptable.
Last Thursday the Internet Technology Steering Committee met for the first time to discuss what should be done with the newfound funds. During the three hour meeting, the 50-member IT Committee, which is composed of representatives from all nine undergraduate colleges, four vice presidential offices and undergraduate and graduate student senators, did not set any specific goals for allocating the funds. The committee did, however, watch a team-building video and resolve to have fun.
Although no significant progress should be expected out of a group's first meeting, the fact that the inaugural meeting of the IT Steering Committee was held at the end of January, five months after OU began collecting the funds, is ridiculous.
The university should only increase fees when it is absolutely necessary, not to have extra spending money. Raising $1.1 million without a specific need makes the university look bad and makes students doubt the need for upping the fees.
Mass e-mail fees won't stop spam
Bill Gates recently announced a plan that would mean costly charges for sending large-volume e-mails. The plan, which is being considered by Microsoft and Yahoo!, was formed under the auspices of eliminating spam e-mails. This strategy, while a noble attempt to rescue customers from evil spammers, is full of flaws.
First, attaching a postage fee to e-mails will not only affect spammers, but also those who use mass e-mails to distribute needed information. For example, when OU sends e-mails to all its students, the fee would be astronomical. Academic and professional listservs would be crippled. The price for sending e-mails, instead of discouraging spamming, would discourage ordinary users. Companies using spam are more likely to be able to pay the fines for doing so. And even if Microsoft and Yahoo! begin charging for e-mail services, a slew of new free e-mail services are sure to surface.
Secondly, the money from the Internet postage will go to Internet service providers in the hopes that the I.S.P.'s share these revenues with customers via rebates or decreased fees for service. However, I.S.P.'s will not be required to share this new source of revenue and can choose to keep it for themselves.
Lastly, there is no definitive system for identifying mass e-mails. It is not uncommon for spam to regularly slip into private boxes or personal e-mails to be incorrectly identified as bulk. This system could unfairly charge Aunt Gertrude when she sends out her family Christmas e-mail or fail to charge for a penis-enlargement message.
The bottom line is that spamming, much like junk mail from the post office, cannot be stopped. While it is annoying, it only takes one click on delete to be rid of the dreaded spam.
17 Archives
