Slashdot Mirror
AOL and Time Warner Confirm Merger Plans
Almost everybody sent this one in: "AOL and Time Warner merge!"
See stories at cnnfn.com, Yahoo! News or almost any other online news outlet. Or go straight to the source(s); the Time Warner and AOL press releases, which make this sound like the greatest thing since the first two 'net nodes were connected together. Now you'll be able to get all your Internet needs, from connectivity to content to shopping, delivered by a single experienced company. No more need to deal with Web sites that stray from the party line, take risks (and screw up now and then), or any of that other messy old-fashioned "Internet as anarchy" stuff. To get online in the future, all you'll need to do is plug in your computer, turn off your brain, and enjoy!
How long until AOLTW pressures Nullsoft into dropping development of Winamp?
And what about TW's Road Runner cable modem service? How will this merger affect competition for Internet access?
I may be paranoid, but having one company control so many media outlets (including AOL) scares the bejeezus out of me.
Why should you be scared? Just think of how fast you'll get your porno-spam now! You'll be able to download it all in just a few seconds instead of waiting all evening to get it all. And, you'll no longer have to worry about thinking for yourself anymore - the largest media company in the world, combined with the largest full service Internet provider in the world means you'll get all of the information that they want you to have, the way they want you to see it! Just imagine, you won't have to think for yourself, your marketing preferences will be ignored, you'll get all the spam you ever thought possible (whether you want it or not) and all on a Windows 9* box because even though AOL can afford US$166 Billion to buy out Time-Warner, they couldn't be bothered to port AOHell 5.0 to Windows NT and properly support dial-up connections with it.
Which is why I'm proud to say, that as of December 30th, I'm an EX-customer of AOL (don't even try to sweet-talk me with that "membership" crap - it's not a voting club). I don't know whose interests Steve Case has in mind, but it sure as hell isn't in the customers.
BTW, it sure blows a hole in all those alleged side-deals for xDSL access with Hell Atlantic, GTE and other telcos, doesn't it? Hmmm, sounds like BOHICA to me!
Marx predicted that, although capitalism was a horrifically efficient tool for accumulating capital, it contained within it the seeds of its own destruction. Just as capitalism had developed when it was clear that the feudal system could no longer evolve, and was holding back the productive forces of the industrial revolution, one day a new technology would come along which capitalism itself would not be able to embrace.
Looks like it's happening! Think about it:
Marx predicted that when the social structure reached the point at which it impeded the productive forces, it would need to be overthrown. Can that day be far off?
I've never understood people like Eric Raymond who claim to be libertarians who like open source. It's intrinsically communistic (or at least, anti-bourgeois). It's clear that the whole apparatus of bourgeois property rights is inimical to the productive development of the software industry as a whole. So the system has to be smashed in the interests of productive development (lend us an AK47, Eric?)
If you want capitalism to remain, you should be demanding that the DoJ stop these destructive mega mergers. Myself, I'll just keep reading my copy of Capital, polishing my own gun and wating for the alarms to sound . . .
They're easy to figure out what their every interest is immediately and then immediately market to appropriately. And also when they're more isolated, they'll be spending less time doing interactive social activities which usually bring a reward of happiness without the neccessity of consumption.
. . . .
This way, everyone is alone in their computer rooms (of course beliving they're connected to more people than ever...which they are, but these people are just as isolated), easy to advertise to constantly. They can INSANTLY buy products which they'll want to do because they want to reward themselves. They've earned money through dull, mind numbing labor, now they use that to buy happiness, which is about the only way to receive it when your "free time" (that time not spent working) is spent in front of a computer. Text conversations aren't even a fraction as rewarding to a person...although we try to convince ourselves such ways of communication are better and more rewarding (when all actuality it's just easier for us, takes less risks...we give into our fears and laziness). Of course the outside world is increasingly dull anyway. Where just about all areas of socializing are places to buy things (malls, restaurants, isolated stores, "theme" parks, etc.)
Eh, what can you do?
As a cable company, they leave a lot to be desired (feature wise per dollar you have to spend). They LOVE monopoly (such as cable companies used to be). I've had Time-Warner as a cable company (in two different states) for about 5 years total and generally regretted that they were the only choice in the town at the time...plus I was renting, so couldn't install a dish (which is what I have now).
Need I remind you that cookies are not inherently evil, like many people seem to think? I set Netscape to accept all cookies that can only be sent back to the originating server, and leave it alone. Cookies don't allow anyone to get any personal information from me that I don't want to give them, and if somebody wants to track which ad banners I've seen and which ones I've clicked on, why should that bother me? It's their banner, nobody else can get the information about me, and as long as I don't give them personal information, they don't even really know who I am - I'm just a visitor number. If they want to track the activities of a nameless visitor, let them!
I do agree, though, that making a site require cookies in order to view it is unforgivably stupid and annoying.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
They make such interesting sparks when you microwave them....
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Then again, that could have something to do with the fact that I bought a mess of AOL stock after that big slide last week.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Ooops. Should of hit preview. Doh!
I wasn't suggesting that ads are bad. I was suggesting that the AOL/Time Warner merger is looking at the Internet as just another ad space. Their intent is just to use this for promotional purposes. I'm still listening to the call and these gentleman are not talking about bringing new things to the Internet table, they're talking about how much more marketing they can do to consumers.
This year, Telergy (a combo ISP + local telco + LD company in upstate NY) started offering DSL in Ithaca. They've been cleaning house up here, due to superior pricing and reliability, and the fact that once Linux support for PPPoE improves (need 2.3 for decent performance), Telergy doesn't ban IP Masq.
This year, I get both my cable TV and 'net access from TWN. Next year, it's Dish Networks + Telergy.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Is that why Microsoft are reupted to be bringing out Stake 2000, which has even less wood and is blunter than ever?
-Dom
Time Warner cable service is lousy. They gouge their customers and then run these incredibly obnoxious ads about people stealing cable, exhorting kids to snitch on their parents and so forth. Then, they run ads with this bald guy eating an apple, extolling the virtues of cable, as compared with satellite dishes. Their billing practices have reached a par with the phone company, which is only a short hop from outright fraud. They want the government to protect them.
The quality of life on the net experienced a atep function decrease the day AhOLe unleashed it's unwashed hordes. Most spam tends to originate there. Everytime you read about a pedophile, AOL's name is sure to be mentioned. In the early days, they oversold their service and people got busy signals. They turned in that Navy guy for being gay. They are a match made in heaven for Time Warner.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
So is Kip your real first name? It is in my case.
--
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
AOL is an ISP with a really easy to use interface and (globally) the widest availability.
For people who travel a lot, or those who want minimal hassle, it is a godsend. One would hope now that this merger will give AOL-like ease of access to broadband.
The "AOL is for lamers" argument is getting really tired. Use the right tool for the job.
-Stu
- It always bothered me that there was regional-restrictions on what cable provider I can choose. For instance, people in Vaughn & Scarborough use Shaw cable, but the rest of the greater Toronto area is predominantly Rogers... choice, dammit, I want CHOICE!
:)
- I thought that @HOME was actually providing the actual support & bandwidth since some time 1998 when Rogers & Shaw realized that they had no experience in dealing with the Internet... So, in effect AT&T is the driving force of cable modems in Canada, with Rogers being just the plumber. eeek.
-Stu
Netscape started embrace & extend back in 1994, when the web was barely an infant.
Restricting technologies to committee-resolved standards is shackling future innovations to a centralized political debate. Once the web moved past early adopter stages (i.e. around 1997 / 98), the "browser wars" pretty much ground to a halt, and the W3C standards body actually started to make sense.
In the end, premature standards underestimate the effectiveness of competition. We have a better web for it [assuming, of course, that Netscape 5.0 gets released].
-Stu
If you hadn't noticed, there IS a court case going on to figure this out.
Furthermore, Microsoft is in its position precicely because WE PUT THEM THERE (WE being the majority of customers who refused alternatives such as OS/2 in the early 90's or DR-DOS in the late 80's.)
In any case, Microsoft is somewhat unrelated to the TW/AOL merger since we still DO have a choice and currently I fail to see how AOL/TW are going to wedge themselves into our lives in the way Microsoft did through OEM-bundling.
-Stu
- Actually, I did go grocery shopping on the web a few weeks ago... pleasant experience.
- I have regular discussions with my friends & loved ones over IRC & ICQ while I'm out of town. No, it doesn't replace the telephone as the "best" way to talk to someone long-distance, but it has certainly been a help (even indirectly in bringing down LD rates)
- It's a company's purpose to attempt to change the way your world works - but whether this is evil or not is a matter of perspective. In the end, they *can't* change you unless you let them... and if you do let them, then it is most likely because your life is bettered by this new service. This is called *innovation*.
Your life is not dictated by corporations, it is dictated by the market, where your $$$ counts just as much as the next person.
-Stu
I'd only feel comfortable if this was a legally binding contract, violation of which would be punishable by the stampeding of a herd of rabid rhinos into the ass of the person who thought about it.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No, it's more like if Microsoft bought Disney and Hughes.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Sorry, but this kind of thinking is sheer fantasy.
Despite all the talk about what great content Time Warner is bringing to the table in this merger, one of the jewels is access to the RR networks for AOL.
AOL will need to migrate their customer base from dial-up to cable/DSL in the next ten years. They sued to get access to the largest cable network (AT&T), and are now simply purchasing access by buying Time Warner.
Don't kid youself. The Roadrunner network will be one of the first pieces of Time Warner to feel the impact of the merger.
The only holdup is that each of the several hundred communities that Time Warner serves exclusively will get to have a say on this merger. But I fully expect them to fall in line and support the deal.
I've been a satisfied RR user for 3 years now, and I can't see anything good coming from this merger.
The problem for me is I simply want access to the 'net. I don't want to buy any value added services from AOL or Time Warner. And in the future envisioned by Steve Case that makes me an undesireable.
Cookies are for much more than session IDs. I can store just about anything with a cookie. One thing I certainly would not store is your CC #! I can store the last time you visited the site, how often you have been to the site recently, your name to personalize the site etc etc the list goes on. G
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
"Maximum promotion of our combined products"
This means AOL/TW will have ads for their crap on everything, everywhere. Turn on your TV, see ads for AOL, RR, etc... Turn on your comp. that's hooked up to RR, get massive ammounts of spam and banner ads about AOL, RR, and various Cable offerings (PayPerView, Pay stations, etc...).
Ick.
"multiple revenue streams from every household"
This means that they're going to charge up the @$$ for everything, and probably raise prices on everything as it stands now. AOL is already more expensive than most ISPs - now RR is probably going to jump up by $5-$10 (making it more expensive than a dedicated phone line and regular ISP account) to make it's price point around the same as AOLs in relation to other cable ISPs.
Basically - the gist is that AOL is going to gouge the consumer on everything from cable access to television, spam you in multiple streams, both online and on the TV, continue to have the WORST customer service in the business, and probably take the relatively good service that was TW's RR, and ruin it.
When's DSL gonna get down to $40 a month TOTAL COST? We NEED it there to combat this sort of crap.
(and before you ask, yes, I'm a RR customer - and this REALLY bothers me)
Gee, this is just what we need another horizontal monopoly that is even more all encompassing than Microsoft could ever hope to be.
The danger is not now of course, but in the future. After all this new beast will not only be able to control a chunk of online content, but now owns a chunk of television(CNN), movie (Warner Bros.), and press (Time Magazine).
The End of The World(TM) is nigh.
HELL YES. I JUST got cable access thru Time-Warner Cable a month ago. I can only pray this doesn't screw it up. If it does, I'll have to battle the RBOC for DSL access *angst*
I truly HOPE AOL isn't gonna meddle with the DOCSIS setup I have... I've truly enjoyed it for the last month.
Any other Roadrunner users out there who may have more insight?
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
I wonder if they'll scrap plans to name the company AOL Time Warner (boring) and call it something like America On Time.
Nah...
At least it's not AOL merging with Sony! That's all we need is to have AOL be a Japanese company! :S
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey.
Time Lord, Dark Horse: The Techno Mage of Gallifrey
After AOL gets all their dialup drones on RR, and clogs the lines with all the *cough* content they provide, you can forget about calling cable modems a fast connection.
DonC.
HEY!! We have the best traffic flow in the... er okay... People here know how to drive!... okay, maybe not... At least our Mayor is honest and stands his ground... damn, got me there... But our police force is so well educated! duh, oops... Well at least I'm inside the perimeter!
:P
All kidding aside, Atlanta isn't THAT bad!
It's not a traditional merger, AOL is actually buying Time Warner. Fairly stunning, I'd have thought it'd be the other way around...
...
I can't think of any pieces AOL is missing now. They have dial-ups, broadband, content out the ying-yang, you name it
Wonder when their antitrust trial starts. I bet they're going to run into all sorts of problems in the EU now.
I can tell you that Microsoft is a big player in the RoadRunner service. So much that I'm surprised it is called Linux-friendly. I've called them (RR) to tell them their DNS for the SMTP server is flaky and they won't talk to me because I'm running Linux. The person on the phone even said that RR would support Linux if someone paid them to do it just like Windows. I've had nothing but trouble with them supporting me and Linux.
Now if AOL-TWN are going to use Mozilla then that would be enough for me to hope RR might get better as a "Linux-friendly" service. They absolutely are NOT Linux-friendly today.
Compaq and MediaOne are other partners in RR.
see www.rr.com for the details. I'm investigating what this is going to mean to RR because I'm seriously looking at switching to DSL because of the non-platform independant stance RR has taken.
Locutus
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Why is RoadRunner a Windows and Mac only shop? Support won't even talk to me because they have me in their books as running Linux? As I said earlier, when a DNS server freaked for my SMTP server (mail worked via POP but not SMTP unless I used a atm??.X.rr.com address) and RR support said they couldn't help me because I wasn't running Windows. The silly thing was, when I said, "Lets pretend I was running Windows. What would you tell me?" here is what I was told. Mind you I already told them I had full WWW/TCP access and could get mail but not send it. That if I used my dialup ISP everything worked....
1) Reinstall your email package.
still broken?
2) Reboot the cable modem
still broken?
3) Reboot Windows.
still broken
4) Reinstall Windows and email package
What crap..... If this deal brings Mozilla into play on RoadRunner we are probably closer to more open support. As it was I had to wait 2 weeks before they fixed the DNS server and until then I had to track down the atm??.??.rr.com server to send email through or use my dialup.
Can you give any explaination for this non-client related lack of support because I run Linux?
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Bill Gates Sr (Microsofts Bill Gates III's father) runs the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. You might also find that when Bill donates to schools and libaries, etc. he writes the software off at retail value and there is usually a stipulation that Internet Explorer is used, or some other software requiring Windows. In other words he is probably making money by buying marketshare,,, I mean donating. I'll venture to guess that Malinda is behind the the donations for children type of things.
Either way, he obtained his $$ illegally becase the courts are too slow and ignorant. They even had him/Microsoft in 1994 and settled with a scolding, "Don't do it again". BFD.
I'm with the earlier poster, Ted Turner is more of a man then Bill Gates will ever be.
IMHO
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I can see it now: "The Matrix - Special AOL Edition"... featuring character names like Morpheus63 and Neo4684... Morpheus makes first contact with Neo using AOLIM... that stupid "Goodbye!" sound effect whenever a character leaves the Matrix (provided they don't get a busy signal, of course)...
I told you it was scary.
Is anybody else as afraid of this as I am?
TomG
...is how this might affect the anti-trust case against Microsoft.
AOL seems to have done a rather poor job of looking like a victim in recent times - this can only weaken the government's position further.
M@T
'sapientia potestas est'
Ah well once the "great unwashed masses" no wait, thats us.. Uh, once the "great moronic masses" get online with Time goes AWOL, my cable modem
won't be worth shit.
da' fly
I find it hard to believe that Roblimo posted the story on slashdot the second he got it. Actualy the way the story was written proves this ("everyone submitted this...").
/. editors waiting a few hours each time a interesting story comes allong just so they get real confirmation.
from the way Roblimo structured the story it looks like he waited untill there was confirmation on the deal (check out the subject...) , and only then decided to post. that's BAD, since Slashdot's advantige over traditional media is that it can afford to be more flexable in regard to posting news stories, without waiting for confirmation each time a story is submitted.
I rather have slashdot have the occasional error (and retraction/correction) then for
--------------------------------
I thought storing session-id's *was* the whole point of cookies? If not to store session ID's, then what *are* cookies for? Storing Credit Card numbers?
-Brent>>If you're such a techo-god how come you double-posted? Perhaps I'll ask Kibo to put you in the global killfile. What do you think about that, Mr. Big-Shot? Hmmmm?
Because my router hiccuped. However, AC if you choose to ignore me from now on.....OH PLEASE DON'T THROW ME IN THAT BRIAR PATCH!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
AOL was NOT THE FIRST TO JUMP ON THE INTERNET BANDWAGON. AOL held out pretty good until they saw that they had to jump on the Internet Bandwagon.
You know I bet you that in about year, Steve Case will be saying. "Folks to make the Internet work, we need to add a few tweaks. They are simple, but because of the investment involved it will be only available on the AOL network."
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
The quality customer service of Time Warner...combined with the quality customer service of AOL.
Sign me up for Road Runner!
-jon
GE doesn't own Time Warner.
And AOLTW is calling it they call it a "strategic merger of equals" (sheesh) but "will be accounted for as a purchase transaction" by AOL.
But they're all part of the huge faceless military-industrial-entertainment complex that runs our lives, so who cares...
-j
I'm picturing the antics of an animated lizard and its friends (esr springs to mind) in their weekly endeavor to put a pie in Bill Gates' face.
But there are still things that you cannot do on the net and will never be able to do on the net, such as grocery shopping, having a sincere discussion with a friend or loved one, and much more.
:o)
Just a quick reply, as I'm up to my eyeballs in work and shouldn't even be reading Slashdot
1. Here in the UK, there is at least one online grocery shopping servce, available in "selected areas" (= the major cities). Take a look at http://www.tescodirect.com/default.asp. Fresh groceries, delivered to your door, for £5stlg delivery. (God, I'm starting to sound like an advert!) I've not yet used the service, but my girlfriend is keen to - I just have to get round to registering for it.
2. I have had a number of very frank, sincere conversations with friends by email, during which some very deep discussions on very personal matters have taken place.
Now, I'm not saying that the internet should play a central role in our lives, but the way things are developing currently, I think that it probably will.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
AOL will continue it's push to try and BE the Internet.
But how can that be when AOL doesn't even offer internet service? Sure, you can get e-mail and view web pages. But unless you have a TCP/IP connection to the rest of internet, with a (dynamically-assigned at least) IP address, you are not getting internet service. Last I checked AOL didn't offer this, or at least you have to be a geek and set up some sort of hack to get a PPP connection.
Any slob can set up a web site, as long as people read, it will stay.
Until AOLScapeWarnerSoftCorp decides that it's not in their best interests. Someone above already mentioned limiting streaming video access from non-affiliated partners; plain HTML access could be next--easily. Remember that they have a captive audience because they have handed the internet to the user without the user having to learn for him/herself how to use it, so if they say to their legions of users,
"This is the internet! Ain't it great?"
then millions of AOLers will never see what us slashdotters look at day after day.
It wasn't so long ago that there was a law against having "big 7" control in one company: TV, radio, magazine, newspaper, cable, phone, and one other thing. I'm sure it would be "big 8" now, with ISPs included. But, as I recall, the big mediacorps lobbied away these laws a few years back. Now look at the mess... anyone got more detailed info?
Jurph
What I'm wondering is if this actually a good thing in disquise, I mean if a large percentage of the AO (hel)l users end up on their new cable backed bandwidth, would that free up Internet bandwidth for the rest of us?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Now, the world can rest in peace knowing that everything has already been decided for them.
---
The statement below is true.
I kind of enjoy the pithy comments... it sure beats CNN news.
---
The statement below is true.
Originally RR was started as a division of Time Warner, but they thought it was best to be run as a seperate company. So they split it off so it could grow and prosper. Various companies such as Microsoft, Compaq, and Time Warner invested in this company.
Hopefully the fact that RoadRunner is not directly under the entire Time Warner umbrella will somewhat protect them.
My roadrunner service has been of good quality for the 6 or so months that I have had it. I hope AOL doesn't go and mess with it. Anyone have experience with AOL owned DSL? Is it Linux/BSD friendly? Roadrunner just got rid of it's windows only login program (but there was a linux version made my users) and I don't want to go back to something similar.
neither of them are good
they both eat shit
boycott them as you did before
it is not official yet its a long process so DO
NOT let it happen in any way !!!
Cable was a nice ride, but it's time for me to look elsewhere for broadband if AOL's going to be serving it up to me.
i hate (almost) anything that comes out of atlanta :) sevendust dosen't count.
Last I checked AOL didn't offer this
Time to check again. That's what the merger adds.
+&x
Let them build their communities. It will appeal to broad masses, and make them rich. Stuff like this is the ultimate evolutionary process for the internet anyway... like it or not, 90% of the general public isn't computer literate enough to check their mail by telnetting to port 110 and issuing POP3 commands... and teach as you may, most aren't ever going to learn to do it. You and I like the internet just fine the way it is now, but face it... we were the pioneers that built the foundation. The web is really only just now becoming truly useful for the everyday semi-computer-literate person. Most people can't get to websites unless they find them on Yahoo! If the internet is ever going to become the ubiquitous entity of our everyday lives that we see and dream of... it's going to have to appeal to more than just us techno-geeks. The innards we love and cherish will always be there, and most of us will always reside there...
woof!
10 times more expensive? I buy a magazine called "Adbusters" whenever I can find it on the store shelves... They have no ads, and it is less then $8 Canadian price... If these people can do it without ads, so can the rest of the magazines...
TW is a company which has consistantly had shortfalls in earnings, while AOL has continually exceeded estimates. Also, if you project AOL's estimated growth out for the next five years (49.9%), AOL's PE (of 217) becomes more reasonable, while TW's really doesnt (currently valued at 101 times earnings, anticipating growth of 13.8% over the next five years).
Take into account TW's shortfalls in earnings vs. AOL's consistant out-performance, and simultaniously look at TW's loss of 277% in earnings over the last five years vs. AOL's gain 92% in the same timeframe. This begins to level the playing field.
Yes, AOL has an enormous market cap (twice that of TW), but their stock has also consistantly out-performed. I don't think AOL is going anywhere. If you look at anaylyst recommendations, you see litterally dozens of strong buys and absolutely no sells from major brokerage houses, while brokers seem comparitively luke-warm about TW.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
Your mention of the Japanese economy and it's eventual colapse (perhaps colapse is to strong, but we'll call this "imho") is interesting. I personally feel that stocks are actually trading at sustainable, although over-inflated, levels. Our economies' growth over the next ten years may very possibly reflect that of the past five. While inflationary presures have increased slightly, so have wages. (imho) Only a serrious increase in inflation without any foundation in underlying growth could produce a serrious fall in stocks at this point.
I haven't looked in a while but last I checked, Yahoo wasn't profitable. While this may have changed, I sincerely doubt their PE is anything like AOL's. I should probably look this up before shooting my mouth off. Oh well.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
It was my understanding, Time warner doesnt own RR but they are just in contracts with each other.
But I may be wrong
Just another Techno-geek lost in cyberspace.
How about building a better junkbuster for a change. If I start the program and other program at the same time, junkbuster usually doesn't work. If I put it on my Startup folder, it will screw up my libretto startup program, and totally remap my keybroad... So, I have to open junkbuster manually everytime window crash me. This is okay but normal people are not going to do it.
CY
I first had AOL, then they called my home when I wasn't there, and convinced my wife that I needed a "service book" for $20 with a "return if not satisfied" statement. Since my wife didn't realize that they had my credit card number, she agreed. Well, when I got home and she told me, I called AOL up and was told by them again and again (I kept asking to see supervisors) that they can't stop the transaction, and to just place "return to sender" when I receive it.
When I received the book, I did just that. But when my statement came I was billed. So I called them up and they told me they never received it! Well, then I asked to cancel my account. And they had the nerve to ask me why! I said "because you send me stuff I don't ask for and then bill me for it!".
Don't worry, I wrote my Credit Card company, and since AOL never received my agreement to send this (remember they talked to my wife, who was NOT a member). My CC company resolved the problem for me.
After that I when to Road Runner on Time Warner, saying that I never want to do business with AOL again. Now it looks like I can't avoid them. God I hate this!
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
uhh.. I believe AOL have some deal with @HOME which is not OWN by AT$T or M$.
I live in the middle of nowhgere, and we are FINALLY getting cable modems (first high-speed line) next month. There is now way I am going to pay for a cable modem just to get crappy pings because I am using AOL. That is the reason I want to get a cable modem, I want to play games online.
The TWC shareholders do look to be doing pretty well out of the deal, which might explain why Reuters are reporting them up almost 50% today.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
The 1 for 1 and 1.5 for 1 is just based on the relative prices of 1 AOL share and 1 TWC share.
What's more important is the market cap of the two companies - AOL is valued at around 2x the value of TWC, so they're the dominant party here. Either way, it's a merger - both companies seem happy to be a part of it.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
I don't know if the US gets better service than the UK, but over here AOL sucks bigtime.
I tried them as my first ISP on that fateful day that I first joined the web. Several hours of the evening were wasted due to the fact that the US version of the software wouldn't create me an account (Zip codes and Postcodes being incompatible, not to mention state codes).
Their software was very bad. To check five e-mail addresses, it dialed-up, checked a box, hung-up, dialed-up, checked the next box, hung-up, dialed-up... you get the idea. With a minimum charge of 5p per call.
Also, when I phoned their tech support to ask how to use Netscape or M$IE with their service, I got a really shirty guy who couldn't care less.
That's why my AOL experience lasted three days.
Now AOL CD's just go straight in the bin. I'm still looking for a good use for them.
insignificant sig
Here's the major difference between /. ads and AOL ads: I don't pay for Slashdot. CmdrTaco needs to get money somehow, and so he uses banner ads. This is fine, they're relatively small banner ads at the top and bottom of the page that don't annoy me. This is similar with most of the magazines I read. They have lots of ads, but they don't especially get in the way of what I'm doing, and the few magazines that I had subscribed to that did I stop subscribing to. However, I pay for AOL. I shell out the cast monthly, and still they force ad upon ad at me, with pop-up windows everywhere I turn, and money-making business partnerships up the wazoo that just generally interfere with what I'm doing. I'm sorry, but when I'm already paying you on a monthly basis, you should not be forcing ads on your readers in the name of "just being paid."
Sorry, I should have been more clear: I don't use AOL myself anymore. I did try it for a while, then stopped because of their ads. It was a horror story getting them to cancel my account.
BTW, excuse the spelling errors, I'm away from a spell checker.
Totally off-topic, but it's a pretty cool feeling when something you said is in someone's quote : )
Consumer reports magazine takes no ads, and costs about $40/year. Their website also takes no ads, and to get the good content, ie reviews of products, costs you $4/month.
Just for info.
The Imperial March
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
If you read the press releases, you'll find that AOL comes out with 55 percent control vs TimeWarner 45 percent. If i'm not mistaken, majority rules, thus AOL is the controlling entity.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
I've been wanting to quit AOL for a while now. Looks like it'll happen this week. Now that I hear news of this merger... well, I'm glad =) One less huge corporation to suck my bank account dry.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Not to dispel the jist of your point (because
I tend to agree with it), but AOL generates
about 5 times the net income of TW (on 1/5
of the revenue that TW generates). That is,
AOL is (in a way) 25 times more profitable than Time Warner.
What saddens me about this is twofold:
shoving our throats the same old crappy content that newspapers and TV have been providing for the past 20 or 30 years. It would benefit us all more (IMHO) if a company stood up and made it easier for individuals to provide content on the net (not that it's very hard right now...).
I haven't taken more than a cursory glance at the web site, but it is available now as far as I can tell and the second I see RR get too much like AOL I'm gone.
Kristian Cee
My interpretation of "Consumer choice" is open access, like the City of Portland. It bugs me to see the words twisted.
in "Being Digital" he supposed about a merger between ATT and Disney, wiyh the new entity being able to sale Mickey toons for less than Bugs Bunny.
I think this kind of mergers are unavoidable because content needs delivery pipes, and delivery pipes needs content.
It also looks like AOL will after all be the king in the next 10 years.
-- We provide Zope consulting from US$ 25 hourly!
If Time-Warner owns AOL, that means they'll own Netscape. Maybe this means somebody'll get around to fixing it so that CNN.com doesn't crash Communicator anymore...
--
This is not my sandwich.
According to CNBC, AOL stockholders will wind up with 55% ownership of the combined companies.
My question is, what is going to happen to the RoadRunner ISP now that they have AOL?
"There's one born every minute." - Steve Case
But there are still things that you cannot do on the net and will never be able to do on the net, such as grocery shopping, having a sincere discussion with a friend or loved one, and much more. Yet, like this AOL/TW deal, businesses think that it CAN replace all that.
actually, i'm glad that TWX and AOL are merging precicely so that i don't have to have to do this kind of crap that you describe. if my loved ones really cared to have a "sincere discussion" they know which channels to find me on!
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
I was listening to "Mountain of Power Procession" and "The Orgy" off of the Conan the Barbarian soundtrack this morning as I read about this. Seemed appropriate, yes?
AOL is not buying Time Warner.
It's a merger, not an acquisition.
If they want to "complete" your Internet experience through one company, I think the only type of service they're lacking is an online grocery service such as Webvan.com.
Now if they hook up with/acquire someone like that I think they're set.
I agree, I have RR and if (probably when) AOL sh@t starts showing up, I'll have to find DSL or something other than that crap. Anyone else concerned that with AOL, their cable modems will slow down to a crawl due to all the crap they push on the user.
Eric VanAlstine All comments posted are mine alone, not Intel's
Maybe next, Amazon will buy Wall Mart :)
There are quite a few AOL shareholders on the various stock message boards that are quite upset with this deal, especially considering it has not benefited AOL's stock at all while the TW folks are making out like bandits. Of course this is a rather small sample, but this merger must meet the shareholders' approval, and this isn't a sure bet. TW stock has gone up 50% today, and TW shareholders will receive 1.5 shares in AOL-TW for each share they hold in TW. AOL stock, on the other hand, is down over 1 point today, and AOL stockholders will receive 1 share of AOL-TW for every 1 share of AOL stock they hold.
Soon, there will be AOL, and the rest of the internet.
This is ironic since the online services have only become true ISP's in the last couple of years. I can remember 4-5 years ago when AOL was just starting to allow web access for its customers. Prodigy and CompuServe were much the same at that time. Up until that time, they were totally self-sufficient and cut off from the rest of the Internet. They provided all content to their millions of subscribers.
What it means is that, as compared with the old days when it was practically impossible to obtain the software with which to connect to AOL, or a copy of Time Magazine, or a Time-Warner cable connection, or access to any of Ted Turner's various TV channels, NOW you won't ever again have to put up with these terrible chronic problems. Why, who knows, if you're lucky, you may even get an official AOL CD in the mail, totally unsolicted! Gosh that would be great!
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I have an account with GTE/Florida where for $35 a month I get the cheapest available DSL line into my house. Then for an additional $20 a month I get ISP service and a fixed IP from Verio (packet.net in Florida). I could have gotten ISP service from GTE for $20 a month, and then I'd only have to pay one bill, but GTE doesn't offer the fixed IP address unless you buy a much more expensive level of DSL service. But since I can choose my ISP separately from my DSL provider, I get that fixed IP address at a nice low price.
I could get a Roadrunner connection to my house, with somewhat higher peak bandwidth, for a few dollars less a month. But unless I am willing to pay a higher price for a higher level of service I can't get that fixed IP address from Roadrunner's ISP service. And unlike GTE DSL, Roadrunner doesn't give you the option of going with a competing ISP.
Now GTE doesn't allow you to buy ISP service from their competitors out of philanthropy. They do it because they have to as a result of the anti-trust laws. It seems likely to me that a company with the tremendous size, overwhelming market share, and steep vertical integration of the newly merged AOL/TW will also very likely find themselves under the purview of the Anti-trust statutes.
So while some people are worried that this merger will result in Roadrunner cable users having AOL's dismally limited ISP service forced on them, I suspect the opposite will happen and this merger will lead to more open access to Time-Warner's physical cable network. At least I hope so.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
The number is HUGE! $350 BILLION is almost 50 times what AOL paid for Netscape, and we thought that was enormous...
Tim
When I said, "this isn't the first step toward capitalism," I meant communism. As another poster said, the proletariat may overthrow the bourgeousie for doing this.... but they'll do it by pointing their browser to yahoo.com or even (as I we) slashdot.org... not by overthrowing the capitalist state. Choices, my friend.
:)
Now all I need is a DSL connection and digital satalite TV dammit!
Falling out of Time Magazine and stuck in your bag when shopping at those cute Warner Brothers stores, too. If I was King, Steve Case would have to eat every damn one of those things.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Steve Case is the head of AOL, not Jeff Bezos. I will be mature and refrain from castigation.
Steve Jobs has done it. His goal was to have AOL in your face for every moment that you're awake. He's now got TV, magazines, and movies to add to that cheesey ISP of his. He won't stop there though, so what's next? Unless Time Warner doesn't have any radio stations, AOL will probably get into that as well. Please tell me Time Warner doesn't have any newspapers. AOL-NY Times anybody? I'm not scared yet, but if the time comes when we have AOL cereal for breakfast and AOL cars . . . oh boy
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Operator: Hello, Mr. X, I just want to confirm that you want to switch your current long distance carrier from WalMart-CBS-USWest-Qwest-Marlboro to our company HP-Disney-Sears-AT&T, is that correct.
Me: Yes. And I'd like to have DSL internet connection provided by Microsoft-Sun microsytem-3COM-L.L.Bean-Warner-brother.
We'll all talk like this in 10 years.
--- You make things foolproof, and they'll find you a damn fool.
I have heard that AOL Time Warner will now be looking at acquiring the Vatican.
No sex is worth 30 grand.
"It's the end of the world as we know it"
Newsgroups? I love newsgroups! And as it happens, those idiots/b[deleted]s/sysadmins at AOL/CompuServe appear to be *prohibiting* my access to public news servers. Each and every time I try to access one I either don't get connected or get a "forbidden" message - and I'd bet you it's not from the news server. So deja.com is all I have. The service appears to be stopping people from using the Net, and I think this is why I'm going to try and leave CSi any time soon. Why, oh why, did they give in?
As a CSi user, I am afraid for a Time/Warner merger. Because now AOL have loads of cash to chuck on advertising. And believe me, they need advertising desperately. In the UK, people are abandoning them in droves for the free-subscription ISPs, and I plan to go with the flow. And AOL/CSi can now spread lies about being the "No.1" (they're not, Freeserve is) over national TV even more of the time. And idiotic consumers will sign on, not realising that they can get more webspace (20Mb compared to 14Mb) and better connection times from any of Telinco's services, including the new one that gives 0800 access every third week. This is why I'm posting this using Freeserve. (CSi's software bugs out on me regularly, although using Microsoft beta software [IE5.5] definitely helps as well.)
So, to summarise, I am afraid for non-users, because with a huge company, marketing muscle can push out the little, small ISPs and make everyone use one big ISP, with which people can censor and prohibit access at will. This is why I hope the FTC will oppose the deal (if that is possible), because we don't have any other hope.
Maybe Ted Turner is a bigger man that Bill Gates is, but that is completely besides the point here. Don't pretend the donations never happened. If you do, that just makes you a fanatic who'll believe whatever version of the truth suits his ideology most - not someone whose opinion is one I'll take - regardless of whether it agrees with me or not.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I'm assuming that by your comments about charity you're refering to Bill Gates. Bill Gates donated 17 Billion dollars to charity over the past year. Yes, that's with a B. You're saying $100 million even compares to that? And are you implying that those charities, just because it's called the Bill Gates Fund is a way for him to channel the money back to himself and is not a "REAL charity"?
It's fine to hate a guy, to question where he got the money from, whether it's really his, whether it even matters to him, what his motivation for giving it away was, etc. but to be so blind in your hatred that you refuse to see that he actually did give the money away is just plain STUPID.
Mmmm.. Donuts
All AOL customers will now receive their bill only 65% of the time. If the bill is forgotten, you will receive a threatning letter with a bill including last month, this month, and penalties for 20% of the sum of the last two.
AOL customers can also expect people not paying for AOL to randomly be given access to the network if someone in the area is given AOL access. Furthermore if you move out you will be charged for AOL access at your old address until someone gets around to actually disconnecting the line (ususally around 3 months).
- Sig
What a move eh? They are going from People-magazineish content to People Magazine content.
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Well, I can't get a cable modem because I live in Portland :-)But I do have DSL and it is really nice.
Durring the early holidays I visited family who had rr, and was it ever slow. Even a telnet session would lag and lag and lag. Does anyone know if cable modems are only good for bigger downloads and thus I would be better off with a 56k modem if I had a choice of ISP with a cable modem? (Half of what I do on the net is telnet sessions.)
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
AOL CDs + cork + tacky glue = wonderful coasters :)
I do wish they still used floppy disks, I'm running low on blanks.
I can totally relate to not being able to leave AOL, I left quite a few months ago and they called me up the other day. They tried to get me to come back and I said I can't run your software I have UNIX, to which they replied "I realize you might have another ISP and we are just asking that you consider us" hehe UNIX, an ISP? hehe. They really need smarter people to make these calls if they are going to sell anything.
In defense of them talking about nothing but the revenue they can make though I don't think it is pure greed, I think with a merger like this you need to sorta stroke the investors a little and get their intrests up, and investors intrests most of the time is greed. As I said before I really like Ted Turner and don't have any problems with Time-Warner, I think after the AOL-MS contract is up this will be a good thing.
BTW I am not defending AOL and lost all respect for them when I got a call from them asking me to rejoin, I HATE telemarketers and coming from a big company like AOL is just low, but I do like Time-Warner, and more specifically Ted Turner. It will be interesting to see Bill Gates reaction when he learns that his precious MSN is now in competition with the other Billionaire.
And yes I was going to mention that Ted Turner who has significantly less money than Bill Gates gave $1 Billion dollars to the UN when they were in financial trouble. Bill Gates to the best of my knowledge has given $1 billion away before but it was to the Bill Gates foundation, so aside from being a tax write off he probably got most of it back. My cousin did a research paper for college and showed that almost all charities pocket most of the money. Like the Salvation Army santa's that used to get paid minimum wage to annoy people and collect no were near $5.25/hour. My mom had a friend that worked for them once, apparently this past christmas they were non-paid, so maybe the salvation army decided that making a profit is a good thing for a charity.
I also like Turner's choice of purchases. I mean he buys cool stuff, like the Atlanta Braves, and the WCW. Stuff that you can't have a monopoly on, but is still pretty cool to own. Gates doesn't buy anything he can't try to crush competitors with.
I can't wait until the AOL-MS deal is over and Steve Case, Bill Joy, and ah yes, Ted Turner take on Bill Gates.
It'll be intersting to see when the new playstation comes out which is supposed to have a web browser how many people keep WebTV too. MS has to be scared right about now. Even without the DOJ intervention their days are numbered.
Either that or you will here "Eh, You've Got Mail, Doc." and "Thhhe theeha That's All Folks" when you log off.
IV
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
According to this article on The Adrenaline Vault, Road Runner "will begin to carry AOL services on its high-speed cable system". Road Runner customers will also begin receiving junk mail from AOL.
However, this will not be happening immediately, since "the merger is subject to certain closing conditions, including shareholder approvals, and is expected to close near the end of 2000".
So it looks like I at least have until the end of the millennium to find an alternative cable ISP before I am assimilated into the evil AOL empire. Cold comfort, to be sure, but at least not as bad as I initially thought.
begin 644
In the late 1800's/early 1900's, we saw some large trust companies rise up from fast growing industries...Steel, oil, etc.
Now, in the late 1990's/early 2000's, we're seeing some other large trust companies rise forth from fast growing industries up...communications, computers, etc.
Just an observation...
I'm still hoping for the FTC to shoot down this deal. Even disregarding my natural suspicion of AOL and its marketing-centric view of the world, and that I'm rather pleased with the fact that all I need to log on to my cable network is a DHCP client, this is /still/ two very large companies forming a bloc that may very well stifle competition in the ISP market, now that AOL has some /real/ content to provide in their service.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
My Time magazine just corrupted. what now?
'Mullethead. A hairstyle that's a way of life'
Steve Case is an evil, evil man. Far more evil than Bill Gates on his worst, Full-Metal Jacket Day. Aside from the obvious attempt to further dumb down the internet and entertainment to the lowest common denominator, I can't see why these mega-mergers are being undertaken other than for some short-term profiteering. Do Case, and the Crew at Warner U REALLY think that they can take a lame ISP, and a relatively lame group of entertainment companies and make gold out of the guano they collective hold? Don't think so. But there's also a more foreboding way to look at this. Big corporations aren't likely to tolerate free speech. Are we NOW going to get TOS applied to all entertainment? (shudder)
Scott A. Carson
"I am Joie Chen, and... This just in, Time Warner anouces that it is selling out to... oh my Diety, AOL! AOL has bough out Time Warner, the parent company of CNN.
... I quit."
I wonder if AOL can get away with pulling another Netscape takeover with Time Warner.
Be afraid. They might try and bring back that Ozzie the Elf fellow, but the rest of Time Warner is pretty much going to be scrapped.
All that they are after is RoadRunner, and maybe a chance to go broadcast.
What scares me, is these people signing more people up to become lemmings, who are afraid to use the REAL internet. Every day, AOL and similar companies are creating internet users who will never learn how to use the internet to it's full advantage, irc, newsgroups (not DEJA!), etc. It's these lemmings that call me up daily and ask for me to help them with the LAMEest stuff. My point: This kind of thing DOES scare me because it continues the 'dumbing down of America' that's so rampant. "Don't worry, you don't have to think, you don't have to LEARN anything new, we'll spoon-feed you what we think you need." It's a biological fact, if you don't exercise your brain, it functions less.
Beyond the media impact of the AOL-Time Warner merger. Like more useless AOL discs coming in every single Time Warner owned magazine. And the increase in AOL commercials on Time Warner channels and "spots" on CNN. AOL is all for "open" access only to save their asses... that's obvious...(there are 5+ free ISPs but in the past they've underestimated market conditions such as the mistake of going "unlimited" without the necessary amount of lines. Them grabbing up Road Runner (since they couldn't get @Home) will probably end up in rapid degraded service of what I've heard is good Road Runner speed in some places. It'll probably only take a month or two after AOL starts promoting AOL's Road Runner or renaming it all together to AOL. Couple this with growing broadband demand (in ADSL/Cable) and we're bound to get speeds _ALOT_ slower then now or months ago. My opinion is that AOL / Time Warner won't have the necessary bandwidth or the bar on what they consider "fast" will far below what we would like to see, say (30k/s) bah ... Surely they will cap ... there's no question they won't, running servers will of course NEVER be allowed. Since AOL makes up a heavy amount of Internet traffic use other ISPs will suffer in speed (perhaps).. And a/s/l will continue to be spammed in AOL chat rooms only now it'll be 10 times faster... I myself have been waiting for Road Runner access... but not now I suppose...
Take the words AOL and TIME WARNER and scramble them up and it spells: NEAR OL WAR TIME
Wow! This is great! I can get all my internet needs from one company! Any chance of slashdot making a dumbed down AOL version?
Is that not what /. is all about... kinda funny how all this new blood comes and wants to change things to the norm. Keep up with the personal touch. I for one, respect the opinions of others. Too many simple minded people can't form their own opinion so they become offended when others do. BTW, those jabs arn't so subtle...
Anytime something leaves my body, I enjoy it.
That seems to be all the Spam I get on AOL, besides Viagra and password scams. Oh well, who knows, whenever I turn on TNT, or TBS, I'll probally cringe now.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
When one considers that AOL and Time Warner are already publicly traded companies it becomes easy to see that they have allready 'sold out'. The arguments about the controlling of information and the access to that information has been debated since soon after the creation of the printing press. One of the best studies into what controls and drives news media would be the compiled works of Chompsky, especially his work Manufactureing Concent.
/. now that Andover is a public company. I suspect little since the industry is so new and fast paced that the typical concerns of takeover and stock devaluation is minor compared to more established markets. But as ironic as it might sound, only Time(the magazine) will tell.
One of the main components of his theory on who and what controls the media is based on the fact that almost all media agents are publicly traded. Thus once a company becomes publicly traded they switch from being concerned about being 'idealistic' to makeing sure two main things do not happen, their stock drops in value and a corporate takeover does not occur. Thus these publicly traded companies start behaveing the same as a natural action. Why? Simple the cross investing (an individual or company that invests in two competeing companies, AOL and Prodigy) that occurs ensures that the company chairs have to maintain policy that remains in check with their competition.
The end result is a system with well defined rules and few if any unexpected actions on the part of the companies. Since these companies allready were publicly traded we will see little difference in the quality of the product since the same forces will be driving their policy makers.
The one thing that leaves me wondering is what will happen here on
I'm guessing the FCC might want to take a look at this shortly, but are they really going to have much clout? Granted, the USA is each company's home base, but would they really want to look at how much content they can put onto their users? Also, what if they decide to keep their system closed? Not just the fact that if you want to use their cable modem service, you would have to use AOL, but if you'd want to see their programming (CNN, TBS, HBO, etc.) you'd have to accept THEIR cable service, THEIR internet service, and basically force you to accept all content from them?
I have to say that I'm damn scared about this. I think this merged company is going to have the clout where they make all the rules, and if the FCC doesn't like it, they'll just pull their services. While maybe we wouldn't mourn the loss of AOL, I think there would be a far greater outcry in the loss of services that Time Warner provides.
Matrix 2 and 3 are going to be chock full of AOL ads ;)
It sounds to me like this is branching off of AOL's old gripe that cable modem services wouldn't provide their broadband access directly to the AOL network. You get your typical AOL trained monkey, who gets excited about the idea of high speed access, cancels his AOL account and gets a real service, only to stare at his Windoze desktop and say to himself "Where is my Internet? Where is my Mailbox? Why don't I have any chainmails and getrichquickmails?" I could be misinterpreting this statement, but that statement struck me as AOL just saying "Now you can have the speed you want, with the" [worthless drivel] "content you've come to expect from AOL! Only $100/mo for high-speed access to Spam Central and Tic-Tac-Toe Online!"
When I first switched to Linux I was having some problems configuring my network card to connect to my pre-existing Roadrunner account. I called tech support, explained my situation, only to have the tech support monkey say "We dont offer any support for linux, as stated on the user agreement you signed, thanks for calling Time Warner" and hung up. Incidentally, Time Warner does not allow any Austin-area users to run servers. I hosted a few Tribes games and got a Nastygram from them. "You are in violation of your service contract, cease and desist this action or we will terminate your service."
Actually, Winamp and Spinner will probably play a big part in helping to promote AOLTW's music. Combine that with AOL's eCommerce capabilties and you've finally got a music company that understands and embraces the internet.
"sleight of hand" If AOL required you to pay for the phone line which reaches AOL, and if AOL actually installed that phone line, then you could compare Roadrunner's "forcing" you to use their ISP. Do you expect Mindspring to offer AOL access? You're paying for Roadrunner's physical cable installation which runs from their buildings to your house, and all of their hardware in between - which they own. I have RR, and use it to connect; I have no problem with them wanting to offer a home page; if you don't like it, set it to blank and qyb.
I have ADSL and my ISP doesn't stop my Linux firewall from being a server; but the DHCP does. I can't really serve out much content if I have to tell everybody my new IP address every 3 hours.
BTW, does anybody know of any service which will map my hostname (internal DNS only, but current can be found by querying ISP DNS servers) to some kind of domain-name? I really don't care what it is as long as the name itself directly maps to my box at all times. Email me with any info you have (binary_node@I_DO_NOT_FEAR_SPAM.hotmail.com)
Thanx
Here we go again... Everytime some mega-corp that has some business on the internet merges with some other mega-corp that has some business on the internet everyone has a coniption fit about how the internet is being too commercialized and how big brother is going to ram it's content down every joe person's throat. Well duh, of course they are.
All due respect, but there is no "of course" in the evolution of net access. Companies like AOL and TW make deals like this precisely because the future is not a forgone conclusion. They are struggling to make history because if they don't, Microsoft or Apple or or someone we haven't heard of yet will. Part of this struggle is guessing what kind of access you will accept and possibly pay money for. If they are wrong, you will go elsewhere. This is why AOL can afford to make a deal like this, because they got customers to pay for access.
It's true that we can't stop people from using AOL, or stop AOL from offering their mediocre service, but we can still fight for meaningful content. Slashdot's success is (IMHO) proof of this. It might even be a good thing if we threw the occasional "Coniption fit".
It seems to me that people are prone to the sentiment that "if people are willing to pay for it, you can't argue against it". This is not so. We can and should argue about things that concern us.
Those who do not seek content will have content imposed upon them.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
--Dr. Seuss
AOL acquires license rights for The Matrix. That's the really scary part.
Sigs no longer in stock. Please reorder.
Trust me, there *WILL* be gnashing of teeth.
There was recently an article (I'm took lazy to look it up and link to it) concerning AOL's lack of diligence in dealing with abuse issues. (spam e-mail, DOS attacks, etc.) Since Time Warner is into the cable modem market (with Roadrunner), is it only a matter of time before we have AOL Cablemodems churning out spam at a record setting rate? What a nightmare when you have an unresponsive abuse department!
Alas, Babylon!
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
So when this merger is complete, will I be stuck using AOL? No answers yet on this one. I'm really curious to see just where this leads. I had AOL in the past and when I quit I received numerous offers to rejoin AOL. Over 2 years later I am still being spammed by AOL. "No I do not want your 'great' services..I just want to be left alone!" So I went to a TimeWarner cable modem..thinking to get away from AOL forever...This really scares me..I can't sue AOL for constant spamming(i.e. one CD a week in the mail on average, constant email on my hotmail accounts,)at least and not have it held up in court. But I am ready for anything that will take the giant "Hi, we are big and we offer a lot of nothing" down a few notches...Sorry all, AOL just really annoys me.
Let's just say I'm worried. To Me AOL does equate to the devil. My local Road Runner service has been fighting just to keep users from changes services...constant Bandwidth problems as well as being capped to a 32kByte upload.Back when the service first started, over 1 and half years ago, I was able to do all my online gaming, upload files at over 100kBytes per sec, and basically had no trouble with downlads. I share your concerns for how adding AOL millions of basically uneducated users to an already overcrowded system will grossly affect out service. DSL has now moved into the options block. And just what will happen to my linux server..Well only time can answer that on but for once i would like to know what was going on before it actually leaves me serviceless.
HeHe...all i want Time Warner for is its cable modem connection to the internet...no software...no e-pooh...just a connection..i can find my own hardware/software/groceries/content. I don't need their content. I will admit the Road Runner University is nice, courses being offered at my convenience...As far as AOL goes....well it can just go...the same place all those |Bleeped| CD's go...the trash.
Sorry but I do...So there..Just as you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided, SO AM I...And yes there are millions of IGNORANT AOL users...if you don't beleive me...well just ask them...most will tell you they don't know what they are doing...But you knew that didn't you...A point click world where when anything goes wrong they are unable to even attempt to fix it themselves...that is what is wrong with the world right now..most people have no clue as to how most of the items they use in their daily life actually work...no I'm not saying they have to be Ph.d's in toaster repair..but...blah...you would not listen anyways...Perhaps our society should continue on its downward spiral...Defending the ignorant is job I do everyday...wether you see it as such, well, I am one of those people who likes to get shot at so your dumbass can point and click...but i guess my opinion of this doesn't matter...Cause no matter what I say..i would be wrong in your eyes..geez..your opinion means what to others...Did you ever stop to realize that looking down on people actual helps them? And yes for a finale...YOU ARE JUST TOO DAMN GOOD FOR THIS WORLD..and I quote.."And the 22 million people who use AOL are not dorks. No, I don't use AOL, but I do not have contempt and disdain for those who do. Period." Nope not dorks...just ignorant of what the rest of the INet and the world has to offer them...basically you're telling me that you have never looked down at anyone...and since we know that is a LIE...well I guess the rest of your words mean very little also...Good day and please ask yourself "Have I ever looked down upon a one armed Viet vet, or a blind child, or even the poor beggar on the side of the road" When you answer that remember your own words...
Did you ever think that he might be right? You must use AOL to defend it so much. I enjoy the freedom of choice and AOL did NOT allow me any in what I wanted to do. So keep chatting in AOL, geezus...I would love an AOL virus...one that basically takes AOL down for one whole day...just to see how you people would cope with life beyond the chatroom. Good Luck to you and your future AOL endavors, however limited they may seem...Remember it's so easy anyone can use it...There is a reason for that..Someone likes your money...22 bucks a month sounds like a steal along with the extra phone line...what another 11-15 dollars a month...Makes AOL almost the cost of a decent DSL or cable service doesn't it...So realize whose pocket you are filling and why...Sorry You just make it so easy to berate most of the AOL community...
But they keep trying don't they...Hey can I send you all my AOL coasters? I'm running out of room...
Yeah, I started hounding my phone company for a DSL this morning....
My other car is a motorcycle!
Just remember, any big company moves very S L O W L Y. As a point my wife has a Compusere account that she uses to get mail through Compuserve. When AOL bought compuserve nothing changed. She still uses that mail account with a commercial reader, NAVCIS. We even have NAVCIS set to go straight through the RoadRunner/Compuserve gateway so she does not even have to use her modem. She can still use a modem when she is out of town to check her mail. Something that RoadRunner by itself does not offer. A posible good thing that might come of this is that RoadRunner by itself had no dialup access. It was cablemodem or nothing. This has caused us to have to pay for RR and compuserve service to get the flexability of dialup for when we are out of town. Now we may be able to have one ISP charge which will save me a little money. :^) If RoadRunner and AOL are both making money the way they are now they will not make any major changes and what changes they offer will most likely be optional. They want YOUR money so they are not going to piss you off.
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
if he does i got both barrels waiting for him
Dan
The cross advertising is really kinda silly... "Free internet access with a douzen video rentals." "Extra IP addresses if you have more than one TV hooked up to your cable." etc etc.
I'm exaggerating about their special deals, but the point remains.
At least they're FINALLY reselling access to their cable network to other ISPs.
Greg
Ahem. I assure you, any slob can. Geocities, FortuneCity, Tripod, Go Network, etc etc. And with the proliferation of WYSIWYG pixel-precise layout editors like FrontPage, Fusion and GoLive, you don't even need to know HTML. What everybody can't do is run their own web server... I'm guessing that's what you really meant.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
couldn't agree more. If we don't stop these corporate giants, the internet will turn into the TV...a brainwashing device....instead of a place for information and creative freedom.
A decent Network is finally here.
You know, I love Taz, Marvin (as I wear my "World Greatist Dad" shirt w/ Marvin on it) and all the T/W stuff from TIME mag to candy. This however, is something I cannot stomach. I abhore AOL and what they stand for so... Good my any and all Time/Warner support from this household.
-------------------------------- |ct2600 | http://www.ct2600.org| --------------------------------
I called my cable company (Mediaone) the other day about getting internet access. They said it was $39.95 a month for their Roadrunner service, and $59.95 if I want to use another ISP. So they do have "open pipes," so to speak, but...
"Together we can change the future for the better."
The better for who, I wonder??
"This merger will launch the next Internet revolution."
How can you launch the next Internet revolution without the father of the Internet, Al Gore?
"... we can't just come up with faster, more affordable ways to deliver information..."
Excuse me? This from the king of busy signals and $23/month dialup service.
"... the company's potential for innovation..."
Like the way AOL bought Netscape and "innovated" it right into the ground? As far as I know, the only company that would consider that "innovation" is Microsoft.
"The possibilities are truly endless."
That's what we're all afraid of.
"I'll be chairman of the board focussing on the things I do best and care the most about while the hard work of managing this diverse company and 80,000 employees will be shouldered by Jerry Levin."
Translation: "I'll take all the credit and Jerry will do all the work."
"... in the last few months, [Jerry and I] spend A LOT of time together..."
Do their wives know about this???
I can just imaging the following coming about:
"You've got news!"
"You've got Time!"
"CNN is reporting, from a reputable AOL source, a new deadly threat to the Internet! The source: an email entitled, 'Good Times'. "
"There is no shot you can take that I cannot simply deny." - Ertai, wizard goalie
Kinda ironic since CNNfn is owned by Time-Warner. My understanding of the deal is that it's a merger disguised as a buy-out. GE (the MegaCorp that owns Time-Warner) is basically bringing AOL under it's wing and make it the dominant factor in the new AOL Time-Warner company. The fact is though that this new company is still just a part of the GE MegaCorp.
Gee, the bigger they get, the harder they fall.
The East Coast anarchists were looking for a good corporate target for our MayDay 2000 actions and it looks like AOL is the best target at this time.
It's time to send a clear message, Seattle-style, that the Internet is not going to be *owned* by one megacorp.
Stay tuned. We'll soon find out how many black clad anarchists we can fit on the Metro to Vienna.
If you find that anti-trust trials take too long and strengthen the government too much, you are welcome to join us.
Our resistance will be as transnational as capital.
Thank you for such the colorful reply, and anonymous too.
Now, I don't know about you, but I prefer to NOT have my Internet experience dictated to me by the powers that be of a major corporation. That is what AOL does. For the masses used to being force fed content on TV and radio, that's all well and good. However, for those who don't like that like me, we choose to go elsewhere.
The Internet used to be a place where the possibilities were limitless. Now, thanks to things like AOL, it's becoming more mass-media driven. The innovation that was once prevalent is slowly being pushed to the back corners of the Net. It is truly becoming two worlds, as I said. On the front, there is the slick, pre-packaged world of AOL. Then, if you have the gumption to dig beyond that, you find the world of the Net as it used to be.
I've been on the Internet since 1991. I speak not from ignorance, but from observation. The Internet climate has changed, and it is not for the better. It is my humble opinion that AOL is in a large part responsible for that. I criticize not the users as people, but the movement in general. Not to put a fine point on it, AOL promotes a dumbed down Internet, and the more power it gains the worse the Internet as a whole will be.
This is of course, my opinion. Take it or leave it. It's a free country, after all, and we are here to have free discussion.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
a separated Internet. In one world we have the AOLers and their dumbed-down, force-fed version of content. Happy in their ignorance, blissfully unaware of the other possibilities, and only accepting what Case and cohorts feed them. They never realize what they're missing, thinking the world revolves around them solely. Their numbers grow as more and more "log on" to the conforming, mindnumbing AOL-TW world. Sadly, this is representative of the majority of Internet users, thanks to the intensive media blitz. On the other, we have the rest of the Internet. They are free and liberated, using local ISPs and their pick of software. Sick and tired of spam and other assorted nonsense from AOL, they have separated themselves from it through judicious use of filters. To them, AOL doesn't exist or is a place to escape from as soon as one becomes enlightened. On this plane free speech and innovation continues, although the majority don't know it because they're too busy with "you've got mail" and all the pretty BS that AOL feeds them. No, wait...this has already happened. Let me see a show of hands on how many have aol.com on permanent filter in mail/usenet/IRC. :) That's what I thought. See, we already have a splintered Internet. AOL will continue to get the Net novices, and hopefully out of those novices some will move away from mass-media controlled content. Most won't, but in some cases it may lead to increasing the population of our part of the net.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
I wonder what Disney's feeling after it's failed attempt to combine media and internet with their GO network. (Remember that? They bought Starwave and their pedophile CTO Patrick Naughton last year). Will Yahoo buy Disney? ----
---------
---------
See who's a dork today! Check out dork.to
I am a programmer, not a joutnalist. (apologies to McCoy).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Magazines would be about 10 times more expensive if it weren't for revenue from ads.
Can you tell me, where I can find those magazines that are 10 times more expensive but have actual content instead of ads?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Buffy, the AOL Lamer.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Market cap is easy to measure - market share isn't.
Remember the recent fuss over Linux users buying Quake to get the commercial levels, but the sales being registered as Windows sales (or something along those lines)?
Who's figures do you believe for market share? Sales figures are always fiddled with? How do you measure the number of Linux users when they can legally download/copy distributions?
Etc?
...j
I find it interesting that a 'net company has finally turned around and bought an established old media company.
Talking about this with some people the other day, and we found it suprising that the dotcoms haven't been using their insane valuations to do stock swaps to purchase the established brands (with good back-catalogues/archives of content).
...j
It probably will mean AOL freebie disks falling out of Time magazine, etc., every other week...
Similar to Freeserve in the UK. ISP supposedly run by Dixon's (big bricks and mortar electrical goods/computer chain in the UK). All the techie stuff is done by boring technical companies in the background, with Dixon's largely providing the distribution network for their CD's (ie, shipping crates of the things to their stores along with their normal shipments of TVs, etc.)
Marginal cost to them is next to nothing, and it's built them a business worth, well, lots. Can't find their exact market cap at the moment, but I seem to recall it's in the region of £1.5bn.
...j
The main problem that I see with "traditional" news media is the continous trumpeting of the old chestnuts "We're completely impartial" and "We just report the news" when in fact it's impossible for any institution to be impartial. Admitting your biases upfront is the only to report the news, IMO. Do you expect that Time Warner news agencies will report about possible AOL misdeeds completely truthfully? Disney execs have said they don't want ABC reporting about the parent company. Is it right, no. Does it happen, yes. (if in doubt investigate the 60Minutes-tobacco industry story that The Insider was based on) If you know the biases upfront, it makes you a better news consumer.
Subject, of course, to whatever their 'acceptable content' policy is.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Adbusters is a nonprofit; I expect that the magazine is partially subsidized by their other donations and fundraising, not just by the cover price.
Adbusters is wonderful, however: I highly recommend it.
I would be quite worried that the big media companies are moving in on the Internet given that the Internet is probably the biggest threat to people used to "broadcasting" their output to people whether they want it or not (I don't like something on SlashDot, there are 1001 other sites I can visit, or better, I can email Rob and complain - try avoiding Time Warner's output for 24 hours).
I hope they are just in it for the money, and not in an attempt to allow them to dominate the Internet in the same way that they dominate the rest of the media.
--
I suspect this will be approved w/ nary a squeak from the FTC, and deafening applause from shareholders. What gov't agency is gonna challenge CNN to a showdown? Who's got more clout, the "altruistic, customer-focused" megacorp, or the "evil, interfering" gov't. The dominant meme in American politics today is that the government can do no right. Which is exactly what the AOLTurnerTimeWarners of the world want.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I suspect this will be approved w/ nary a squeak from the FTC, and deafening applause from shareholders. What gov't agency is gonna challenge CNN to a showdown? Who's got more clout, the "altruistic, customer-focused" megacorp, or the "evil, interfering" gov't. The dominant meme in American politics today is that the government can do no right. Which is exactly what the AOLTurnerTimeWarners of the world want.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The problem with SmartMoney's map is that it focus on market capitalization, which tends to be based on the fantasies of the investors, as opposed to market share (how much of a given market does a given company control)? It doesn't give any insight into areas where there is a lot of competition vs areas where there is almost none.
Oh no! The one company that understand how to make online services easy to use is getting bigger!
Has it occurred to anyone that this might be a Good Thing? AOL is very keenly interested in network appliances and non-PC devices in general. PDAs, phones, set-top boxen, wearables, etc., and they're interested in doing so on non-Microsoft platforms. That means there will be a formidable company backing devices beyond those that are "Windows-Powered".
This is one of the few possible moves that can prevent Windows Media Player and ActiveX from becoming requirements in the near future, and works to bolster alternative operating systems regardless of what AOL Time Warner themselves do. Their motivations will be revenue and traffic, not cross-sales of a line of software. This is important.
Once upon a time (ahem) Time-Warner bought and ruined Atari - but THIS time, haha, the boot is on the other foot. Who woulda thought that some little outfit that started out trying to deliver Atari 2600 video games over the phone (now known as the mightly AOL) would be buying out TW - heeheehee.
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The decision by American Online to buy ALL of Time-Warner has extremely frightening possibilities, to say the least.
The Time-Warner conglomerate already controls a large fraction of what we see on TV, hear on radio and read in magazines; add in AOL's huge online presence and they control a large portion of what we read on the Internet, too.
I think the FTC _may_ ask many questions about this, because of its severe anti-trust implications. It's like if Microsoft were to buy out either Symantec or Corel....
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
This is slightly off topic (which is why I'm posting this without my bonous point) but it has to be said..
Why did it take slashdot more then three hours to report this?
I know that this may sound somewhat pedantic, but this really IS major news and should have been put on slash the moment it got out. Instead, for some unknown reason (confirmation?) slash opted to wait. Roblimo has posted other, less important stories throught this period, so this really puzzles me.
Bad slashdot! BAD!
This delay denied the comunity from commenting on this story in real time, which is slashdot's true forte. And why I read slash religously. you have been warned.
--------------------------------
You are not the only one who owns some stock. They have done quite well in the last six months. One of the better performers.
My only concern is that I hope this doesn't screw up the Time Warner Road Runner Cable Modem service. I just signed up and I want to use my Linux box for my home network. You mention Linux to some of these guys (ISPs) and they throw up the great wall of china.
lcase - @home in cyberspace
>>Not everyone can meet you at your level. I'm glad that AOL (who has done more than any company to bring the Internet to the masses) is leveraging their power to increase their range.
Why is this good? Did you ever think that maybe more clueless idiots is exactly what we DON'T need?
The more clueless idiods we get, the more of a call for regulation we will get. Also people who don't understand the culture, the more "$$$$Make cash Now, Ask me How$$$" messages we will get.
>>Not everyone can fire up a Linux box and configure PPP and connect to the Internet.
Not everyone can put the key in the ignition, start the car and go for a drive.....If you lack the requisite skill set, you've got no business getting on the internet.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
>>Not everyone can meet you at your level. I'm glad that AOL (who has done more than any company to bring the Internet to the masses) is leveraging their power to increase their range.
Why is this good? Did you ever think that maybe more clueless idiots is exactly what we DON'T need?
The more clueless idiods we get, the more of a call for regulation we will get. Also people who don't understand the culture, the more "$$$$Make cash Now, Ask me How$$$" messages we will get.
>>Not everyone can fire up a Linux box and configure PPP and connect to the Internet.
Not everyone can put the key in the ignition, start the car and go for a drive.....If you lack the requisite skill set, you've got no business getting on the internet, or going for a drive.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Interesting point. Many ISPs already have terms of service that prohibit running servers. And I have noticed that ADSL is labelled as being for home/consumer use, whereas SDSL (which also happens to be a lot more expensive) is labelled as being for business.
Could this whole situation turn into a Free Speech issue?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Netscape has always been evil. In the early days of the web, you could view any web page with any standards-compliant web browser. Netscape changed all that when they launched their embrace-and-extend attack on the Web. This was long before anyone ever suspect that Microsoft would ever get involved.
I think the real reason a lot of people around here are pro-Netscape is simply because Linux/Unix doesn't have any decent web browsers. Netscape's decision to support Linux was a brilliant move, because they picked up a lot of advocates who were gullible enough to believe that Netscape was a moral alternative to Microsoft.
By keeping Linux users from ever having an itch, Netscape prevented the open source movement from ever scratching. They didn't need to give you a good web browser; a mediocre one would do. I hope the open source community thinks about the consequences, the next time someone tries to seduce them with Linux support. Thank God that no one ever licensed a DVD player for Linux!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Here we go again...
Everytime some mega-corp that has some business on the internet merges with some other mega-corp that has some business on the internet everyone has a coniption fit about how the internet is being too commercialized and how big brother is going to ram it's content down every joe person's throat.
Well duh, of course they are.
But how is that any different than it was last year? Or the year before? Or the year before? This is been going on for about 5 years and honestly it has yet to change MY internet experince. I still dont use AOL. I still am bombarded with ads and get spam (since about 95 at least). My connection is still too slow. There's still just as much crap as there is good content.
Dont forget, the audience is what dictates the content. If you want to see something, you'll figure out a way to find it and someone will figure out a way to bring it to you. This isn't TV. It does not cost millions of dollars for a transmitter and FCC license. Any slob can set up a web site, as long as people read, it will stay.
Honestly, it doesn't look that different than yesterday from where I'm sitting. Yes the internet is different than it was when I started in the early 90's. But then again I could not buy CD's or books, or computer parts, or musical instruments on the internet back then either.
-Rich
Except that AOL, much as we hate it, is the real deal. They have 4 times the profit of Time-Warner (real cash money, not stock profit) on a quarter the sales.
this isn't a shell game, much as we hate AOL it is a seriously profitable company that is the envy of every other market.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
They can add there own little slice to the Internet if they like but the'll never change whats allready here. /., Only Yahoo can change Yahoo, Only Zindophy can change Zindophys home page and if we don't like it we make an alternitive... (Note no one who complains about /. knows enough to make a functional alternitive or at least cares enough to try)
/., no replacement to Amazon (unfortunatly), No replacement to Ebay (if there was Yahoo auctions would be that replacment)...
When I came on the Internet it was allready making it's first moves to e-commerce.. But the term itself had yet to be coinned.
Instead of Amazon we had books.com.. a telnet server instead of a website...
Years later... ICQ did not replace IRC (as some predicted) Java did not replace HTML....
The Internet is still pritty much a Unix domain to spite all efforts by the leading maker of operating systems to change this.
Why? And why can't the Internet be changed?
It changes every day but all anyone can do is add to it... Only Andover/CmdrTaco can change
It is unlikely that AoL/Time will be able to make functional alternitives to all the content on the Internet and if AoL isolates it's users from that content the existing user base will move to other on-line services that let them access the content they wish. (It seems unlikely that AoL users will switch to an ISP but there are plenty of user friendly OSP AoL clones that users can pick)
No AoL/Time alternitive to
AoL/Time can add content all they like.. if it's no better than the current trash it'll just stay in the corner. Lets hope AoL and Time don't think handing out CDs and ad campaigns can change the Internet.. we have to much spam as it is....
I don't actually exist.
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
rooooar
Let's say, for example (and, yes, I know this is super-far-fetched), that Steve Case gets a little power-happy and wants to scare the American People. AOL's Welcome Screen, CNN, all of AOL/TW's Media outlets proclaim "China Launches Nukes," citing anonymous sources. Seeing these reports in numerous media outlets, other non-AOL media, the Times, the Globe, the WSJ, etc., all begin reporting that CNN and AOL are reporting nukes, etc. Panic ensues.
Like I said, I realize this is extremely far-fetched. But what if enemies of the United States were somehow able to gain influence over this new conglomeration, which has such an incredible pull on what we, the American public, know? Selective reporting and editing can influence the masses in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
They say power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While I don't think Steve Case or the TW guy has any plans to destroy America, I don't think it's healthy having all the media controlled by a single entity. The whole idea behind the Internet was to have things decentralized so that if a part were ever to shut down the rest could continue. What happens if all of AOL goes down?
It just seems scary to have to rely on the good will of a small group of people for the entire information distribution system of the nation.
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
rooooar
The duplicate posting of this story has disappeared from the front page, but there was a decent amount of discussion there too, so here's a link to it:
9 226&mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/10/094
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
The problem, though, is that most people don't want interactivity. They don't want Tim Berners-Lee's web, where ideas can be exchanged at the speed of light. They just want to go to joecartoon.com and get the latest Gerbil cartoon. Or they want to go to msnbc.com and get the latest news. Or go to ZDNet so they can feel "techno-hip". They don't want to come to Slashdot (please, flamers, refrain from comments regarding free-thinking and Slashdot, I've heard enough). They don't want to try new things, hear new ideas, or contribute their ideas. Maybe they're lazy. Maybe they're afraid. Maybe they're stupid. But to these people, the Intenet is TV over the phone-lines-- they don't care if the connection is two-way.
You know, this is the usual contempt that folks who think they are elite pour down on mundanes, but it's not true. AOLers and others love interactivity just as much as you. They may post to message boards to talk about their cats instead of code, they may join chat rooms to talk about their kids or look for virtual sex, but the ability to communicate with other people enchants them just as much as it does you. Climb down off the high horse.
AOL Declares Guns Pornography
Sharp G&A readers have noticed that Jim Supica, owner of the Old Town Station Dispatch Ltd., occasionally loans us an antique firearm for our photo layouts. He is a Federal Firearms License holder and runs an honest, above-board business.
It must have come as a complete surprise when America Online summarily removed his Web site from its system and sent the following e-mail to his account address. AOL wrote, "We have become aware of a web page site that is part of your account. This web page violates Hometown AOL's Community Standards, which prohibits sexually explicit graphics, links to other sites which Hometown deems offensive, harassment, the use of vulgar or sexually oriented language, discussion of illegal activities, and/or other activities that may impair the enjoyment of our community's members."
"We have placed a note of this incident on your account history and consider this a first warning. We have removed all the file(s) from your web page/ftp site. A second occurrence will result in termination of your account with no chance of reactivation."
Although AOL has a right to say yes or no to the types of web pages it permits, it seems a bit strong to call gun dealers pornographers. "I've heard from other dealers who got the same form letter and a no-warning boot from AOL," Supica said. "I mainly want to get on with my business with the least possible hassle. AOL's decision to dump gun dealer sites did not bother me as much as the manner in which they did it."
Thanks to Bill Clede of the Shotgun News for the story and to the Hodgdon Powder Co. for forwarding the information.
Does this mean that we'll have hearing "You've got cable!" when we turn on our cable box?
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Dont forget, the audience is what dictates the content. If you want to see something, you'll figure out a way to find it and someone will figure out a way to bring it to you. This isn't TV. It does not cost millions of dollars for a transmitter and FCC license. Any slob can set up a web site, as long as people read, it will stay.
That's exactly what you sould be worried about. As it is, any slob can't put up a web site, because not every "slob" has access to a machine with the connection and bandwith to perform any serious publishing. As bandwidth gets cheaper, and more homes are wired up, that will change.
But if your home access is controlled by the very people who have large stake in traditional corporate media, why the hell would they ever give you the ability to publish anything. Your net connection exists to consume content content, not create it. Even if you've got bandwith out the wazoo, all to bring you pay-per-view TV on demand, don't expect them to let you utilize it to do anything other than sit on your ass and buy things.
What about this deal is anticompetitive?
You want online access to HBO, get AOL, you want online access to CNN, get AOL, you want RoadRunner service, get AOL (should I continue?)
Not anti-competitive, per se, but this will be the model for a 21st century media company. Anybody who can't follow will most likely be crushed. Plus with the massive TW reach, AOL will continue it's push to try and BE the Internet.
+&x
No kidding, carpet bombing with CDs to gain subscribers has worked great for them. TW gives 'em nuclear capabilities. I need new things to do with the CDs, I'm covered for coasters for life, but they just keep coming!
+&x
just wait'll they buy Anodover on a whim..
+&x
Anyway.
I don't like AOL. It could be said that I in fact hate AOL. I do however believe that there is little danger of their bubble bursting at this point.
Isn't it obvious? Money is most certianly the primary motivation. You have to admit, from the capitalist business man's point of view, this deal is potentially extreemly lucrative. You say that "you [AOL and TW] nor a company nor a governement can define the purpose or behavior of the internet". I'm not sure that this is true. Americans remain the primary force in world government, and America remains a consumer economy. The internet didn't become "big" until it became accessable to the average user (see the rise of the "web is internet" concept). As it has become larger, the other applications (IRC, newsgroups, free information exchange between comon people) for the internet have become more sparse. Their numbers may have remained approximately the same, but as big business has begun to dominate the landscape of the internet, the un-profitable uses for it are pushed out to the edges... perhaps off the map entirely.
This brings me back to my original remark. The internet is a marketable tool for the proliferation of capitalism. As long as this remains true, big business will continue to dump money into it, and it will play a larger and larger role in all of our lives. People (in America) follow money. No two ways around it. Those with the most money win.
Sincerely,
Ryan Taylor
After all the noise Steve case made about open access last year, Will AOL Time Warner Allow other ISPs on the AOLTW owned cable companies? They forgot to mention any thing about it in the press release. Just that AOL will be avaible. Hey Steve your comments about open access are part of the public record! Live up to them.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
True, but AOL doesn't own it. It's merely "co-branded" -- that is, another company provides the service, and sells the naming rights to AOL. Yahoo does the same thing with many of its services (maps by Mapquest, weather by WeatherNews Inc., etc.) Frankly, I don't know how many people would sign up for AOL Long Distance given the company's already crappy record for handling local dial-up number service.
For more information, click here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the first thing I thought of when I read about it this morning. So, after I got home from school I called my local Tampa Bay RoadRunner, and the guy I talked to said that no, I would not be switching to AOL and that it would stay "RoadRunner". Now, this is just a regular customer service guy so it could be wrong, but at least it's hopeful information. Even if it did turn to AOL, I probally wouldnt' drop it due to the fact I like my high speeds, but I would definitly complain.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
That's pretty wrong. AOL does offer a reasonable approximation of a TCP/IP connection, and it does so by default. I'm not even sure it's possible to disable it.
The catch is that it's not PPP... it's actually done at the driver level. Essentially, the AOL application pretends to be a NIC. Of course, this only works on Win95 and MacOS, but AOL is only available on those platforms anyway, right?
MSK
*cries*
Just when I was feeling good about my cable modem... If the roadrunner comes on and tells me "you've got mail" I'm going to shoot someone.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
RoadRunner was just becoming a good, un-intrusive ISP.
They recently got rid of their login software, so that it works completely transparently.
In the beginning, the technicians who installed the cable connection had some FUD for Internet Explorer that they would spread. ("We can't guarantee this will work with Netscape.") They've stopped doing that now.
They have decent Linux support - back when you had to log in, they pointed Linux users to a Perl script you could use to log in. They have Linux-related newsgroups on their server as well.
With AOL buying them out, I'm afraid this could all go straight to hell. In the eyes of AOL, Linux simply doesn't exist, since it has nothing to do with their target market. Their login software is notorious for being as intrusive as possible - one program that you have to start, and you can only effectively use the Internet programs that are assimilated into it.
In the old RoadRunner login software, there was an option to open RoadRunner's home page automatically, which provided "content" in case anyone cared. AOL seems like the kind of service that is liable to put the login system back just so they can have their "Channels" show up on login. And of course it would only be a Windows/Mac program.
Now, I hope I'm wrong. AOL pretty much left Netscape alone, so it's possible that RoadRunner will remain the same as well. However, I really doubt it. AOL's network has problems. What if they dump all their users onto RoadRunner's network? It doesn't matter how fast the connection is, if it's got a bottleneck that has to be shared by millions of people.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
AOL makes a good play that helps their side. If the FTC doesn't shoot it down, AOL has some way-serious, inbred, cross-marketing potential. I'm not talking about AOL-everywhere, although that's going to happen now. I'm talking about advertising packages. For example, Reebok will be able to run an ad campaign across TV/AOL/Movies/Magazines, at a bulk rate.
For TW, the merger may have been a must, and I take it as a sign that they gave up trying to cope with the Internet as a medium, and settled for AOL's 20 million customer base. Yay, they're to the 90's and 00's what network TV was to the 50's and 60's. [vomit]
No, AOL is not an ISP. AOL is a media company, which means "advertising pimp". Has been, will be. The Internet is just another tool for AOL, along with its private services and now Time, Warner Brothers, and TBS, to "market goods and services".
Oh, bloody hell, I forgot about that. TBS will now be in AOHelL. And I thought Time Warner's acquisition of TBS was bad.
The real scary part is combining limited access with huge market power. An earlier post mentioned TW's RoadRunner putting time-limits on streaming video that does not originate from an affiliated site. As an aside, I consider such action to disqualify RoadRunner as an ISP, and instead classify it as an online service.
But consider the possibilities: AOL uses its market share to "convince" large-dollar sites to make deals, because non-affiliates don't get full bandwidth. Users may grumble and moan, but where else is the typical AOL user going to go? An ISP? That would take thought, and require learning something. So, AOL can say "Hey, we've got 30 million people that won't be looking at all of your content if you don't have a deal with us. Bandwidth costs money, you know."
End result is that AOL pimps, makes billions, and puts itself between more revenue and the Internet and AOL user bases.
In a sense, this is creating a new internet.
:)
AOL's community is going to be almost completely self-sufficient. Why would you need to leave the vaulted doors of AOL in the future... you have almost everything you (the consumer) need, or want. Every aspect of your leisure life is just about covered. Like sports, hello Sports Illustrated. Need something for the kids to do... well, Warner Brothers has plenty of that. Need your news, well Time and CNN are right there for you.
Soon, there will be AOL, and the rest of the internet.
Fine, let them have it
AOL is not buying Time Warner.
It's a merger, not an acquisition.
Only in name really... AOL shareholders get 55% of the company in this all-stock deal. And Bezos will head it.
AOL is getting 55% of the new company.
:)
What you described above shows that you have a poor understanding of the situation.
Very rarely do merging companies have the same amount of outstanding shares. In this case, Time Warner has 1.2 billion, while AOL has 2.2 billion.
Some stock swapping has to take place in order for AOL shareholders to have 55%. You do the math.
Once again... I am right
The merger itself - I may have missed this, but this is all pending FTC approval, right? I have a
feeling that there may resistance from the FTC *AND* shareholders in this. So nothing's written in stone yet.
Yes, it still has to be voted in by shareholders... though Ted Turner (the largest shareholder) has already stated he would vote for the merger with his 9% of Time Warner. The other majority, all the institutional investors out there will most likely vote for it because it is the best thing for the stock price... already we have seen Time Warner go up 50% on this news. Who is going to vote this down!?
The FTC will have to approve it, but there is very little standing in the way... as long as Disney is alive and kicking. There is no monopoly present.
I dunno. Seems like lately, the dominant meme in American Politics is "we must protect the children".
All the while, the 3 largest Energy (Oil) mergers (Exxon/Mobil, Amoco/BP, Shell/Texaco downstream), the largest telecomm (MCI Worldcomm), the largest automotive (Daimler/Chrysler), the largest media (CBS/Viacom) and the huge (and illegal at the time of cosummation, they got the law changed AFTER the merger) banking/insurance merger (Travelers/Citicorp) all take place.
Rather than the Government being afraid to take on these corporations, after all they DID take on Microsoft, I think the politicians and media are providing cover for them.
It's funny how the 1980s are still known in the media as the Merger Madness decade when it was the 1990s and now the 2000s that have really seen the growth of the MegaCorp. Who would have thunk that Clinton was more friendly to big bidness than Reagan?
-Jordan Henderson
Ah. The enemy of my enemy, right?
Oh yes, have been for ages. They invented "decommoditising net standards", after all.
As one of the legion who spend 10% of work time authoring web content, and the other 90% trying to work around Netscape bugs, I'm sure I speak for many others in saying Netscape are very evil indeed, oh yes. :-(
So, roll up, roll up, for the fight of the multinationals! Netscape-Sun-AOL-Time-Warner vs IE-Microsoft-MSN-News-International, coming soon to a world near you!
On pay-per-view, natch.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
Agree. Danger Will Robinson!
/. , and those like it which incorporate human input, are the last entries into the media world for a long time. But even when a story is 'broke' here, the rest of the world's population hears it spung and dumbed down by the like of TW and its peers.
It is bad when a few companies control so much of something. However, as far as how this affects both comapnies, AOL and TW benefit greatly. AOL gets the 'programing' and content (etc) while TW extends its market to half the expendable income in the world.
I hope for our sake and most likely the sake of our children that the FTC blocks this. TW already has the ability to implement mind control (in the form of repeating news) on the world. To put matters simply,
Listen: DSL is *way* behind cablemodem, and MS and AT&T effectively blocked AOL out of the cablemodem market.
If AOL didn't have access to cablemodem, it wouldn't have access to broadband. If it didn't have access to broadband, it DIES.
Yes, I don't like concentration of services in a single firm as much as the next guy... but understand that it's more SCARY for AOL-Time Warner's shareholders than for consumers. Look at the executives: there's a Chairman & Vice Chairman and two Co-COO's. That's confusing - there are TOO MANY managers, and (I expect) the firm will compete poorly with smaller, nimbler rivals. No, this isn't the first step toward capitalism, it's the first step toward decreased revenue & profit growth for the combined firm. (BTW studies have shown time and time again that recently merged firms do worse than the individual firms did before the merger).
AOL *needed* to do this (and may try to buy it's way into more broadband). And no, I think we don't have anything to fear from the combined firm. With the exception of TW's cable customers, this firm isn't any kind of monopoly.
If anything, the "dominant meme" in the current administration seems to be to jump into a fight if they see a reason.
What you haven't explained, though, is why the FTC should be worried. What about this deal is anticompetitive?
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
So a few months ago I finally dumped AOL and ordered Time Warner Roadrunner cable. What a joy it was to be free of the pitifully slow network, obnoxious advertisements, and People-magazineish content of awful AOL! Now - AOL is going to provide content for Roadrunner. Next thing you know they'll have a proprietary browser. And pop-up ads. UGH!
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I also like Time Warner, and us Turner employees got good things when we were merged with Time Warner. The benefits are wonderful, as are the people I work with. Even the people that were let go supposedly got great severence packages.
You can't believe the depression that set in, though, when I came in this morning and had three corporate emails confirming the merger. If you want to hype up the company and the potentials of the merger to idiot buzzword buying stock brokers, that's fine, but to send the employees the press release about how wonderful this is was pretty insulting. PLUS!! It's going to be called AOL Time-Warner!!! Why the #$*%$#& do [em]they[/em] get top billing?!?!
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Wonder what our friends in Redmond feel about this...AOL is one of their main competitors for domination of the Internet. This must be a real spanner in the works.
PS:I would give anything for a view of the MSFT offices via webcam right now.
PPS: I wonder where this leaves Yahoo...I kinda like 'em and will be sorry to see them left behind. I guess old media/ new media marriages will consume every portal. Since Disney, NBC and USANetworks have all merged with or bought portals, Yahoo is looking more and more naked. Only time wll tell I guess.
My dear old pop, who writes *nix even yet, has crates of these things courtesy of my dear old mum, who is an aoler and windows specialist.
He makes tibetan prayer wheels out of them, threading a couple dozen onto a dowel with bearing races so they spin freely. very cute little items. also extradinarily handy massage tools.
Carl
AOL already has a reputation with the computer knowlegable for not being the best ISP. As a Time Warner Customer, I can state that they don't have any better qualities. I can't see the combination being all that sterling.
The internet thrives on connectivity. Time Warner's theories on openness leave a lot to be desired - look at their Pathfinder service. They've run their cable companies with an iron fist, and now they'll have control of AOL?
Oh yeah, and they're for openness, but only in broadband. What about in cable?
Someone previously mentioned the committment to broadband choice - that's just someone writing comedy into the press release. Vinton Cerf has said that broadband PROVIDERS are driving that revolution - AOL is just going to have to sit and watch unless they buy a provider. There is no incentive for me to put up a fat pipe to your house unless I can sell you the service that is going to run down that pipe. AOL wants access without doing any of the work or investing any of the money.
Someone needs to ask AOL since they are into open broadband, are they willing to open their instant message standard? Demanding openness all depends on whether you're at the short end of the equation.
In short, I think this is a power issue. AOL/TW will have far to much discretionary control over too many media outlets. I saw a syndicated column this morning in The Arizona Republic that mentioned how control of media outlets shapes public opinion, like in the 50s when the major networks supported the Korean War, and in the 60's when they opposed Vietnam. Who knows when that'll be exercised again...
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
AOL can never take over the internet; it can never control the media even after buying Time-Warner.
While this is probably one of the biggest mergers in history, and certainly the biggest media merger, it's important to keep in mind that the internet is also the biggest communications medium in history. Even with the merger, they "own" the same proportion of the internet that other companies (say, ABC or NBC) owned in other communications mediums, like radio or television. Actually, they own less.
As long as there are people like us on /. who are committed to providing and/or promoting:
a) open source, free speech internet standards like Linux and Mozilla,
b) many ISPs and many sources of bandwidth (DSL, Cable, Wireless/Satelite), and
c) a variety of hardware architectures,
the internet will never become owned by one company. No matter how much AOL and Microsoft wish over a magic 8 ball.
-Merlyn42
The audience doesn't care if it's hard.
Until AOLScapeWarnerSoftCorp decides that it's not in their best interests. Someone above already mentioned limiting streaming video access from non-affiliated partners; plain HTML access could be next--easily.
I'm not an expert on AOL since I've only used it a couple of times at my parents' house in the last month.
But didn't they try this already? AOL did not always allow access to the internet. Users complained. AOL changed their mind, and left compuserve and prodigy in the dust. Whether they are free or not, people want to think they are. History has proven time and time again that the little guy has the power to beat goliath if he offers something people want.
-Rich
It doesn't really seem too horrible, but who knows.
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
rooooar
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even though AOL will be the purchasing company in terms of stock, will Time-Warner's influence alter the nature of the Mozilla project?
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Except that AOL, much as we hate it, is the real deal. They have 4 times the profit of Time-Warner (real cash money, not stock profit) on a quarter the sales.
While AOL's profit margin may be higher, you still have a company with revenues of $2.17 per share, buying a company with revenues of $21.85 per share. Time Warner's cash flow is also close to ten times that of AOL. This year, Time Warner had an operating margin of 28%, while AOL pushed 10% for the very first time.
AOL may have proven you can make money with the internet, but I a little nervous as to whether they have worn themselves a little thin.
Wow. You really don't like this, do you? I mean, yeah, it isn't exactly a blow for individuality or innovative thinking, but don't get so worked up. Even assuming it's as bad as you make it out to be, it's not surprising or even a big deal. Let me tell you why:
The Internet is a communications medium. Just as radio and TV are communications media. The major (and this *is* big) difference is that the Internet allows interactivity. If you don't like what's being said, you can post something on USENET, or Slashdot. Or go over to (God help us) Geocities and put up a webpage stating your opinion.
The problem, though, is that most people don't want interactivity. They don't want Tim Berners-Lee's web, where ideas can be exchanged at the speed of light. They just want to go to joecartoon.com and get the latest Gerbil cartoon. Or they want to go to msnbc.com and get the latest news. Or go to ZDNet so they can feel "techno-hip". They don't want to come to Slashdot (please, flamers, refrain from comments regarding free-thinking and Slashdot, I've heard enough). They don't want to try new things, hear new ideas, or contribute their ideas. Maybe they're lazy. Maybe they're afraid. Maybe they're stupid. But to these people, the Intenet is TV over the phone-lines-- they don't care if the connection is two-way.
The AOL-Time-Warner merger is simply a statement of this fact; a glaringly obvious expression of what has been known for a long time. It's not a step forward in the idea of turning off brains, and it isn't even really anything new. This thing is only going to allow people a central site to go to when they want to switch their minds off.
People have turned their brains off for a long time, Roblimo-- this is just going to be a new place to do it.
More and more I'm reminded of the cyberspace scenes as described by Gibson. On the virtual world of the internet we have these larger and larger blocks representing big companies...
Have a look at SmartMoney's Map of the Market, which, I suspect, may have been inspired by the same Gibson reference. It's a very nice way of representing the relative market caps of these big companies (and the movements of the individual companies, market sectors, etc.). Very cool tool...
...j
I've been listening to the analyst's conference call for the past half hour and I have to say the thing that struck me the most was AOL COO Bob Pittman's comments about how this new company will allow for "Maximum promotion of our combined products" and then went out to outline how they will have multiple revenue streams from every household (Internet access, cable subscription, movie buying, magazines to name a few) and the cross-advertising possibilities. Financial analysts will eat this up, but what's it mean for you and me?
I am not qualified to make such a determination, nor am I necessarily opposed to this merger, but I can think certain aspects bear scrutiny.
TimeWarner has a dominant position in a number of media niches, including television news (through the CNN family), newsmagazines (Time), movie and music publishing, etc. ad nauseam. While I don't recall if they're the largest cable operator in the nation (sounds right, though), I do know they serve the largest markets (NYC, LA). They already own a cable ISP (RoadRunner).
After this merger, they'll own the largest ISP in the nation, AND the Netscape browser. (Blah blah Mozilla blah - Mozilla may be open source, but Mozilla isn't Navigator. They'll have the exclusive rights to the Netscape name, and the attendant mindshare.)
This is an unheard of level of vertical integration, and can (likely, will) be used to lock competitive content out of their network. RoadRunner's TOS already includes restrictions on viewing more than 10 minutes of streaming video from anyone but "RoadRunner content partners".
The closest historical analogue to this situation comes from the days when Hollywood studios had a collective lock on the exhibition market - all of the theatres were studio owned, in order to have the right to exhibit films produced by the studios. At that time, not only did this keep competitors out of the exhibition market, but it kept competitors out of the content market; There were no independent films to speak of, as they couldn't be exhibited in studio-owned theatres. This situation also led, naturally, to price fixing, as studios could deny access to the exhibition market anyone wishing to compete by selling tickets at a lower price; studio-owned distributors would simply refuse to service these competitors.
Ultimately, the studios were forced to divest themselves of their theatres as a result of (surprise!) anti-trust action, in the so-called "Paramount Decrees".
I think the parallels here are fairly obvious.
-Isaac
More information about the Paramount Decrees (and more analysis of vertical integration in media) here and here.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
We saw similar activity in the 80's with the Japanese markets soaring to unbelievable heights.
Remember the fear of the "USA being bought by corporate Japan"?
Japanese companies were an unstoppable force at that time... you had fledgling Japanese companies no one had even heard of 5 years prior buying long-standing Amereican companies with ten times their revenue. The inflated prices of the Japanese stocks enabled them to do this.... Just as AOL is now able to buy Time Warner, a well established company with much greater revenues and cash flow.
Will this be like the Japanese market of the 80's? When the Japanese bubble eventually burst and left numerous companies with more than they could chew... or will power of "The Internet" continue ever onward?
Maybe next we will see Yahoo buy Disney... it is certainly not unthinkable.
Now you will be logged off of Time Warner if you don't change channels every three minutes. When you turn your cable box on, you will fail to connect about 50% of the time. Your tv images will now be compressed to save bandwith at the expense of your image quality.
But reading these press releases, both companies feel that they need to push the internet to be central in our lives. May I ask why?
Sure, in this day and age, not knowing the internet is going to hurt your job chances, but that's because doing research and some buying on the net is much faster than placing phone calls or snail mail. But there are still things that you cannot do on the net and will never be able to do on the net, such as grocery shopping, having a sincere discussion with a friend or loved one, and much more. Yet, like this AOL/TW deal, businesses think that it CAN replace all that.
What also bothers me about this is that companies are trying to define the way the internet works. Anyone else see those Nortel Network commercials "What do you want the Internet to be?" I'm sorry, but you nor a company nor a governement can define the purpose or behavior of the internet; it's a mass result of 6 billion people working together, and changes every single day. Sure, companies may try to map their little area of the network around to fit their goals, but there will always be anarchie and entropy on the internet. It's part of it's being.
More and more I'm reminded of the cyberspace scenes as described by Gibson. On the virtual world of the internet we have these larger and larger blocks representing big companies; they merge and migrate, and look very dominating over everything else on the landscape. But there will always be space between said blocks, and that space is the true stuff of the net - freedom of individual thought.
Now that I've finished going poetic...Some things that I don't worry about : Limited content: AOL already had this without TW's help. That part of the merger doesn't change anything as long as all other possible content that is non-AOL or TW remains untouched.
The merger itself - I may have missed this, but this is all pending FTC approval, right? I have a feeling that there may resistance from the FTC *AND* shareholders in this. So nothing's written in stone yet.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I'll be seeing ads in TIME magazine telling me how to $$$GET!!!RICH!!!FAST!!!$$$?