MAT-SU -- E-mail subscribers may have cause to celebrate in the new year, as a new anti-spam law goes into effect Jan. 1, but some are skeptical that the new law will change Internet traffic.

The law, S. 877, was passed by Congress Dec. 8 and signed by President Bush on Dec. 16. Dubbed the "CAN-SPAM Act," the measure preempts existing state laws, except those prohibiting false or deceptive e-mails.

According to information from the Newspaper Association of America, the measure defines a commercial e-mail as one in which the "primary purpose" is a commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. Referring to a Web site or a commercial entity does not make an e-mail commercial, if it is clear that the primary purpose of the e-mail is something other than an advertisement. The bill also says a recipient has given affirmative consent to receive commercial e-mail if he or she has "expressly consented to receive the message," or if the consumer has given consent to allow a sender to transfer the e-mail address to a third party. Transactional e-mail messages are exempt from the provisions in the bill, so those referring directly to customer accounts, for example, won't be flagged as spam.

Matanuska Telephone Association Public Relations Manager Jacqueline Whitstine said MTA is prepared for the new legislation, and foresees little problem complying. As a company, Whitstine said, MTA doesn't send out mass e-mails, and has strict anti-spam rules limiting the number of e-mails its business subscribers can send out. Although some businesses or nonprofits with MTA accounts do send out regular e-mails to customers or members, Whitstine said it's easy to tell from the volume which are sending out spam. And MTA has followed through on its rules, discontinuing accounts when customers cross the threshold and send spam.

GCI, Alaska's largest Internet service provider, takes a more removed stance on spam. Although the company itself sends out e-mail only to those with whom they have accounts, it doesn't interfere in customer accounts unless they receive a subpoena or legal action, according to company spokesman David Morris. That is, he said, unless it has an effect on the integrity of the network. For example, Morris said, if a customer's computer becomes infected with a virus and begins spewing out e-mail and degrades the network, the customer's computer will be cut off from the system.

Although Morris said GCI will comply with the legislation fully, it will be up to prosecutors to enforce the new legislation. And, he said, from an industry perspective, it doesn't appear the new law will have a lot of effect.

"It's speculative whether the legislation is going to make a lot of difference anyway," Morris said.

In looking at the legislation's new requirements, it's small wonder Morris is skeptical. CAN-SPAM requires senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail to provide an honest subject line, the physical address of the business and notice that the e-mail is an advertisement. Harvesting of e-mail addresses is prohibited. Unsolicited e-mails must contain a clear and working opt-out mechanism. The advertiser must stop sending e-mail to someone opting out within 10 business days.

This legislation isn't just aimed at a few people sitting in basements with their computers. Whitstine said she was recently presented with information that about 24 percent of all Internet traffic in the United States is spam-related. Morris cited estimates that 80 percent of all e-mail sent on a daily basis is spam, and said that number is likely to rise.

Whitstine said it's likely the legislation will stop the few spammers who concern themselves with obeying laws, while others will likely simply become harder to track.

The legislation does not allow individual account holders to sue, but it does allow Internet service providers and state attorneys general to sue violators in U.S. district court. The penalty for each separate e-mail sent that does not contain or honor an opt-out mechanism is $25, and $100 for using false or misleading transmission information. Violators may face jail time and fines of up to $2 million, though this amount may be tripled if it is determined that the sender willingly violated the law.

Short of suing, Internet service providers offer some solutions. Morris said GCI has a filtering system in place which skims off about 2 million spam messages each day. The company's filter, Morris said, is only as restrictive as the customer chooses to be, with filtration levels set by individual consumers.

MTA offers a similar filter system, Whitstine said, for about $1 per month. E-mail Genie, Whitstine said, is used by about 70 percent of its Internet subscribers. Unwanted messages, she said, are quarantined to an outside server, so risk of getting a computer virus is lessened.

CAN-SPAM contains language requiring the Federal Trade Commission to draft a report outlining a plan for establishing a do-not-e-mail registry and an explanation of any problems that would prevent such a list from being created. This report must be submitted to Congress by June 16, 2004. The FTC, according to information from the National Newspaper Association, has indicated that a do-not-e-mail registry would not be practical as most, if not all offending spammers, are located off-shore and because there are concerns that e-mail addresses used by spammers can be changed easily and quickly. This provision gives the FTC the authority to create a list, but does not mandate that one be created.