File-Sharing For Fee

Fax Are Funny Things

We communicate mostly by e-mail at washingtonpost.com, so it's easy to forget about the still ubiquitous fax machine. One thing's for sure, though: When I take infrequent trips to the machine at our reception desk, I realize just how many trees have been sacrificed on the altar of fax spam.

Congress and the Federal Communications Commission know this, but each took action earlier this week that eased proposed rules on sending junk faxes. Here's the news as reported by the Associated Press: "Congress approved junk fax legislation Tuesday that would allow businesses to send out unsolicited faxes in certain circumstances while protecting the rights of consumers to stop receiving them. The legislation... reinstates a 1992 Federal Communications Commission ruling that permits businesses and associations to send unsolicited faxes to those with whom they have an 'established business relationship.' It would eliminate a new FCC ruling, first drawn up in 2003, that requires businesses and organizations to obtain prior written approval before sending a commercial fax."

The AP quoted the bill's sponsor, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), as saying that the written permission rule would cost small businesses $5,000 to comply with in the first year alone. DMNews, an online newsletter for direct marketers, quoted the American Business Media president and chief executive, Gordon T. Hughes II, as saying it was a positive move.

The Southern Illinoisan, offered a real-world example of how this would affect small businesses: "George R. Trammell, president and CEO of the Marion Chamber of Commerce, said he thinks the new rule would be useful in some instances, but not all. Trammell said many local businesses, including restaurants, send out daily faxes touting special services or menus. 'We get faxes all day long from companies trying to sell medicine, vacation trips and such, but we also get faxes that are locally generated that we do want to get,' he said. 'The local ones are the ones I can use and would want to receive.'"

A Different Kind of Wireless Plan

The Richmond, Va., school board is mobilizing after administrators reported that they're spending excessive amounts of time trying to keep students from violating the school's cell phone policy, the Times-Dispatch reported. One possibility? Pulverization.

"Board member David L. Ballard favored continuing the current policy -- with one major catch for a second offense. 'The offender's cell phone would be placed on a podium . . . and hit with a hammer,' he suggested."

Yes, Ballard meant it as a joke. But seriously, the board ended up voting 4-3 to ban the phones from schools. The board had allowed students to bring them to school as long as they were kept turned off and stowed out of sight, the paper reported, but apparently this wasn't working out.

Elsewhere in the wireless world, polling firm Harris Interactive said Monday that nearly one in 10 American adults has gone entirely wireless, and nearly half of all American adults are thinking about it.

The survey, conducted online last April among 1,088 adults, said that leaving landlines behind is a growing trend, but added that 40 percent of the respondents said they would never go all-wireless. Twenty-six percent of that group said they like the idea of safety that a traditional phone provides, while 7 percent said their cell phone signals are weak or unreliable. Nearly a third said they would reconsider if cell phone coverage improved.

Canada's Rx Chill: A Reader Responds

In my June 24 column about Americans buying prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies, I ribbed the Bush administration over its fear of reimported drugs bought online. I said it was funny when compared with the White House's insistence that shipping in flu vaccine from Canada was perfectly safe. Reader Tony Jewell, who was a press aide to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson at the time (and still handles press for the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, which is led by Thompson), said I did readers a disservice.

Jewell: "I remember the secretary making a clear distinction each and every time between the two issues - something you very clearly fail to do in your story. ... I can't help but think that was intentional, as you understand there is a difference between FDA-inspected flu vaccine and Internet pharmacies (or even non-Internet Canadian pharmacies). I write this not as a true believer in the dangers of Canadian drugs, but as a reader who sees that you mischaracterized what the secretary said. You employed hyperbole in an unfair manner, no matter what you remember him saying. It would have taken a few more words to accurately portray the issue, but your point would have been much better taken if you had."

In a White House online chat last October, Thompson said the flu vaccine was subject to rigorous inspection by federal government, unlike the prescription drugs available for sale over the Internet -- whether they come from fly-by-night operations or licensed Canadian pharmacies.

Send links and comments to robertDOTmacmillanATwashingtonpost.com.