Slashdot Mirror
Reactions to AOL/Time-Warner Merger
"There is absolutely nothing in Steve Case's background that suggests he is particularly well-equipped to lead a new kind of unimaginably complex media conglomerate into the 21st century, and Wall Street analysts who are so blinded by the hype surrounding this deal that they fail to consider it carefully are likely to be sorry. Along with some of the other arrogant lynchpins of the digital economy, AOL would rank tops among companies that have routinely exploited and mis-handled their dependent customer bases. Could there be anybody alive in America who hasn't personally experienced or known many people who have personally experienced the interminable cut-offs, waits and disconnections that have, from the first, been a staple of the way American Online has done business? How many times has Steve Case had to go on his own online service to apologize for delays and problems brought about by a company that prized growth well ahead of honesty and service?
"Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world? Is individualism, free expression, diverse opinion advanced when the information economy breaks down into two or three "old and new" media conglomerates that control virtually all of the archived news and entertainment information online, and increasingly, the means to deliver it?"
- Wayne A. Martin, News Manager, Amiga.org:
"Smaller niche websites could be pushed further into the shadows by mega-media companies like AOL/Time Warner that have almost unlimited Internet and television promotion resources they can use to boost their own websites. But on the good side, the merger between AOL and Time Warner seems to go hand-in-hand with AOLs recent deal with Gateway to use Gateway's new Information Appliances based on Amiga technology. This could open the doorway to Information Appliances in the market place a lot quicker than many might have expected. With Gateway, Amino [now Amiga Coporation] and probably others able to produce this type of machine, this could possibly be the fatal blow to MS that many have been waiting for."
Brock Meeks, MSNBC correspondent:
"The bottom line of this proposed deal is nothing more than crass commercialism. What a huge advertising coup this is for Bob Pittman of AOL, he must be drooling at the thought of how to put AOL's nefarious 'pop-up' ads on CNN and print via Time magazine. From a public policy perspective, this venture is D.O.A. as well: no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit. Despite the rosey promises from AOL's Steve Case that 'all comers' will be welcomed to compete on the new venture's cable Internet access system, it remains to be seen just how stalwart Case remains in backing up that promise. Remember, this is the same Steve Case that, under oath during his deposition in the Microsoft antitrust case, swore with a straight face that 'We are not a competitor to Microsoft.'"
David Cassel, Editor, AolWatch Newsletter:
"Here's a reason to fear AOL's control. AOL blocked delivery for the last edition of the AOL Watch newsletter. Did the newsletter's 25,000 AOL subscribers trigger an overzealous spam filter? Or was it that this edition was the first to remind users of the phone number for discontinuing service. (AOL had kicked the ACLU off the service after six years, and there was discussion about cancelling accounts en masse...) Either way, remember: Whoever controls the wires can control the content."
Marty Bass, Morning Edition co-host, WJZ TV (Baltimore):
"I can't imagine that this merger will in any way affect local news gathering or viewing. To duplicate the job we do would require setting up a newsroom. I mean, let's face it; with streaming audio and video you could do a 6 PM News, but this would require a ton of cash, and the local stations already have the major headstart, not only in style but in established viewing. This would be an expensive proposition that would not bear fruit for longer than the 'bean counters' could stand.
"Also lets just say that my station which is a CBS O&O, (CBS already provides news to AOL) put our newscast on-line. Would this change the way our competition does news? No, the primary audience is still watching over breakfast or dinner or in bed at 11. The smaller on-line audience would essentially be getting a big promo for the big shows."
Chris Johnson of airwindows.com:
"What with AOL consuming Time Warner and threatening the stability of the world and all, it seemed to me that it would be good and proper to seek the lighter side of the matter. Here is a short quiz. Identify the proper AOL Spokesmen for the following phrases...
'You've, I say, you've got mail, boy!'
'We are going to buy ICQ because it obstructs our view of Venus!'
'Nnnnyou've got mail, Doc!'
"These are of course restricted to classic WB cartoons. But the fun of it is, AOL now owns most of Western Media! :P - so the field of potential spokesmen is almost infinite!"
Alice Hill, Editor, CNET Online:
"We don't really view either company as a competitor. We did a major deal with AOL in 1999 to provide our content for the computing channels on AOL.com, netcenter.com, compuserve.com and the computing and Internet channels on the subscriber services AOL and CompuServe. Over the past year we have enjoyed the relationship, and the audience. At this point, the notion of adding Time Warner to the mix makes it even better."
Carl Steadman, columnist, The Industry Standard:
"The lesson is clear: send out enough pieces of direct mail and you, too, can own the world."
For links to many more opinions on the AOL/Time-Warner merger, please see this excellent page put together by long-time online writer amd media critic Steve Rhodes.
Time to pop that cyanide pill I've been carrying around, I guess.
I'm confused by katz's bit about stock analysts - I don't follow the market, but i thought the news was that aol and time-warner stock had been going *down* since the announcement.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Chances are, AOL is going to "modify" the internet division of Time Warner (Road Runner). What I'M worried about is if they're going to turn RoadRunner into a fast AOL. Think about it....AOL has been plagued by their reputation of having really slow service. Now, if they take RoadRunner, they can truthfully advertise this as "The fastest AOL EVER!", then my interface turns to crap, and I get baby-faced content shoved down my throat.
Not only that, what happens if the rr.com domain is absorbed by AOL.com? That would mean my new E-mail address would end in aol.com opening up the floodgates for spam. This is not what I want.
I am perfectly happy with my current Time Warner RoadRunner service, and I will be very upset if this changes. It may even be enough to force me back to dialup access, as that's the only thing in this price range. And I hate dialup.
Dial-Up is better than AOL, however.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
There's a point where it doesn't make sense to make a corporation any bigger folks. AOL has created a dinosaur. Their competition should find it fairly easy to outflank them now.
There's a point where it doesn't make sense to make a corporation any bigger folks. AOL has created a dinosaur. Their competition should find it fairly easy to outflank them now.
Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world?
Isn't one company always going to be bigger than any other, and therefore control more content and/or access than any other? I don't like this merger any more than anybody else (had I not already been refusing to support Time Warner by subscribing to their cable service, I would have cancelled my cable this week), but this statement just doesn't make sense. Maybe he meant "more than all other companies; but I don't think AOL-Time Warner is going to be that big. Yet.
I refuse, on principle, to have a
I think that the effect on the internet as a whole will be negligable at best. One of the writers above mentioned danger to niche sites. People who use those sites now won't stop, and given the rather broadscope of traditional media, and their ignorance on several subjects, niche sites will still be neccesary. Large corporations that have to serve a wide audience can not concentrate vital recources on a small group of consumers. Unlike say, slashdot, which is only concerned with the vital 'Techno-Geek' market, allowing slashdot to send all of its time and recources on things of intrest to them.
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
Moderate this post UP!!!
We now have a company that can deliver CNN to more than a billion people, yet almost half the world's population still have no access to a telephone. The information gap between rich and poor is already intolerable and now may be made much worse with a greater concentration of technology and information resources in rich, northern countries."
Cool!. That means that the propagandistic crap that CNN spews out won't reach the malcontented billions. Could this be the internal contradiction of capitalism that leads to its downfall?
Not to mention that the "democracy" that the IFJ espouses is questionable, what sort of democracy do they want? A large part of the article is a jeremiad against their declining labour conditions. I feel for them, but how many of them are really trying to kick the systems ass? I suspect that much of this sort of moaning is from people that previously felt themselves protected from down-sizing and now realize that it's a bad world that they supported up till now. Aargh...maybe I don't really mean that...things are not going well today.
This is pretty much a sick display of Katz' "corporatism," which is one of the few things I agree with Katz on.
The internet should not be the next battle ground for big corporations that it is becoming. Regular users are going to end up getting screwed in favor of huge profit margins.
Oh well, I guess we should all migrate to the I-2. ^_^;
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Moderate this request for moderation UP!!!!
However, does this create a new monopoly, but one with far more content and access. MS may own one, currently predominant platform, but they have failed on the conduit (MSN) and content.
Will the press be controlled (oops -- stating the obvious and current situation)?
Is it good for competition? Versus MS, yes. Overall, most likely not.
On the other hand, the mere fact that AOL and Time-Warner are major international corporations is grounds enough to examine whether this deal is a good thing or not.
Personally, I wouldn't say AOL are significantly better or worse than any other ISP. I've had no more disconnects the times I've used them than when I've used any number of local ISPs running Windows-based systems.
That's not to say I think AOL should be excused - if Windows doesn't cut it, don't use it! - but rather, they shouldn't be villified as if they were the only ones out there. Plenty of other people pull the same stunts, and deserve to be reprimanded for them.
As for the impact this'll have, honestly I don't see it having any. ISPs will still refuse to support multicasting, IPSec, IPv6 or any other technology that might eat at their profits, through customers getting a better deal. As the current setups are already maxed out, for the most part, precicely because of this attitude, there's not a whole lot AOL or Time-Warner can do to change things.
The most I can really see happening is AOL offering Warner Brother skins for their software, and/or more AOL adverts on the Cartoon Channel. Other than that, there's nothing more that can really be changed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't visit AOL/Timer-WAarner sites apart from my rare visit to CNN by clicking on slashdot posting.
The reason the Internet thrives and on-line services ( AOL, Compuserve etc. ) don't, is the multi-cellular architecture of the internet.
If you scream, the mainstream media won't here you. But the internet will. There in lies the uniqueness of this entity we call the internet.
As for AOL/Time-Warner, well, we all know what happened to the dinosaurs ( although we don't know how it happened ), and well, the bigger you are the harder you fall.
An interview with Steve Case on his new employees.
realvideo
quicktime (xanim-compatible, I think)
--Jim
This merger causes me a lot of concern. It represents the joining of two resources (media and medium) and creates all sorts of efficiencies that will disallow competing viewpoints to emerge from the media. Furthermore, the sheer size of this new entity will again raise the bar against any new entities entering the journalism and/or broadcasting fields. Consider for a moment the rules already governing journalism and its practice via press passes, etc. This governance will only get stronger in the face of powerful lobbying by this new huge entity (American Time Warner?) and those rules will be unlikely to become less restrictive in this new regime (I used that word on purpose); in fact, those rules will probably become even more restrictive to suit the whimsies of this new organization for the newest mass medium (the Internet).
This merger may have benefits, but it puts way too much power into one entity.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I was wondering when someone would post this story on Slashdot.
"Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world?"
Um, Unless we want to have government monitor and split up all content providers then there will ALWAYS be one compay who is on top. And even if we did let the gov monitor and spit them up then guess what? The gov becomes the one big company. Kinda ironic huh? The free market does a great job if its just left alone.
On last night's news there was a quote from a Microsoft spokesman. I don't have it exactly, but it went something like: "What's with those DOJ bastards, why are they still after us after this AOL/T-W deal was announced? Fuckers!"
Answer: AOL and TW don't engage in illegal business practices. (Or at least they haven't been caught.)
.
Cool!. That means that the propagandistic crap that CNN spews out won't reach the malcontented billions.
hehe... when AOL opened the floodgates upon usenet with its uneducated users with a great big post button and buggy software that duplicated sensless one liner comments seven times each into what was a thriving diverse usenet community, it was effectively a denial of service attack. Entire newsgroups were ruined.
I was reading the alt.best.of.usenet or whatever it was called --at the moment they turned on their sewage pipe. Immediately, the newsgroup filled with humorous postings was awash with crap.
You think CNN is bad now, just wait until they monopolize and control all your news feeds with their quick and agressive marketing strategy. With AOL's proven expansion, it seems many news carriers will be gobbled up and you will have one source for your news! Yipieeeee!
I really dislike how Microsoft and their supporters say that this merger puts them in direct competition with Microsoft, and that therefore the anti-trust case is invalid. They said the same thing when AOL bought Netscape... It would seem that anything that AOL does these days invalidates the antitrust trial...
In truth, they're still in very different markets. With a few exceptions (MSNBC, Slate) Microsoft has tried to steer away from the content markets - they even say so at times, saying that they'll create the tools for other people to create content and view it with. AOL on the otherhand has been chasing the content market without really caring much for the software side of things. So long as it works good enough for their subscribers to log on and access content, that's fine.
Besides which - AOL has no operating system. It runs mainly on windows, with much delayed upgrades to get Mac users up to par with Windows users.
So, regardless - users still need Windows, which only Microsoft can supply at whatever charge they'ed like - AOL is mainly a content company with a very small finger in software, where as Microsoft is a software company that dabbles in content - I can not fathom how Microsoft can say that AOL has created true competition for them.
Yes, it is a little scary to think that way over half of the mainstream news outlets will be controlled by AOL Time-Warner, but it's a different argument completely. But so long as they don't "revamp" their software to interfere with users visiting content sites that aren't controlled by them, I am very hard pressed to see the real "consumer harm" that people mention.
NBC, CBS, CNN etc all basically report the same exact news. You've always had to dig deeper to find the "other" news. Since AOL/Time Warner only serves the mainstream, I doubt it will make much difference to us, even in 5 or 10 years, who owns what, because they're all already the same.
I'm not a big fan of either company, but I have to say that this merger looks like a smart business move. Time warner has content and wants electronic distribution. AOL has connectivity and needs content to keep people coming back. It's that simple. The two parties even interlock on the type of Internet connections they can provide: AOL has modems but no cable, Time Warner has cable but no modems. I know I'm oversimplifing things, but you can see why the stockholders and business wonks are going to approve. And before we all wring our hands over AOL making us watch pop-up ads in the corner of movies, this isn't the first time that a content provider has merged with the connection provider. GE owns both NBC (who make TV shows) and RCA (which makes TVs). Yet you don't see RCA TVs made that only receive NBC. So long as AOL doesn't restrict users from choosing ESPN.com over CNNSI.com, let's not panic. Let the bean counters drool over market forecasts and "synergy". If they jack up my cable prices, I'll dump my stock and get a dish and DSL.
Mozilla was already racking up device after device while Microsoft stalled... But with Time Warner being the second largest cable system in the US and AOL already having a huge chunk of the dial-up market, it looks like it may soon (in the next year or two) become nearly impossible to browse the web with a non-Mozilla browser.
I bet Gates is pissed.
...was having to see Steve Case smiling at me from the front page of both of my morning papers at ~5am.
--t
I don't dress this way to be scary. I dress like this because it's easier to sort my laundry. "...black...black...blac
What was this, a say the stupidest thing possible and pass it off as analysis contest? Here are some real winners...
The Katz entry: Are consumers really well served when one company controls more content and access than any other company in the world?
Well, John, hasn't one company or another always been #1?
From Brock Meeks: no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit
Hmmm... guess that puts an end to home delivery of newspapers. And those damn local TV stations better quit doing local newscasts as well.
Chris Johnsons bit: Yeah, real deep and funny..
Why doesn't anyone address the real nice outcome from this merger... open access to cable infrastructure is almost guaranteed thanks to this.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Funny comming from a MSNBC correspondent. Isn't NBC doing coverage of the MS trial? Just strikes me as a little glass houseish.
-cpd
So does this mean that AOL will charge by the hour for cable access?
I am perfectly happy with my current Time Warner RoadRunner service, and I will be very upset if this changes. It may even be enough to force me back to dialup access, as that's the only thing in this price range. And I hate dialup.
I, too, subscribe to RoadRunner, and I love it. Thoughts of having to hear "You've got mail" every time I logged on to the internet made me cringe as well. But even if they never force RR subscribers to log on with their bloated software (unlikely), the simple fact that by subscribing to RR I am, in a way, supporting AOL is enough to make me cancel (Not until the merger is complete, of course. I believe that is sometime next year).
Don't ignore the possibility of DSL! In Texas, I believe DSL only costs five bucks a month more than cable modem.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
While it has stabilized today, AOL's stock needs to be high for this deal to go through. AOL was down 15% since the announcement was made. With the 11% loss of Time Warner in the past two days, the value of the deal has dropped an incredible $23 billion. If this continues, this could spell a lot of trouble.
If AOL backs away (because of dwindling market valuation), they would be forced to pay a $5.37 billion breakup fee (the largest ever), with Time Warner's at $3.9 bilion. The walk away date is May 31, 2001.
I think you have little to fear. As I understand it, RoadRunner is a separate company not under the control of TimeWarner, but rather under contract to use TimeWarner's existing personell and lines in exchange for $.
As always this may not be correct...as I am not affiliated with TimeWarner.
Hee, hee! I get a kick out of seeing journalists from different areas putting different slants on a story.
Take a good look at these:
"With Gateway, Amino [now Amiga Coporation] and probably others able to produce this type of machine, this could possibly be the fatal blow to MS that many have been waiting for." -- Wayne A. Martin, News Manager, Amiga.org
"The bottom line of this proposed deal is nothing more than crass commercialism. What a huge advertising coup this is for Bob Pittman of AOL, he must be drooling at the thought of how to put AOL's nefarious 'pop-up' ads on CNN and print via Time magazine."
(and...)
"...no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit." -- Brock Meeks, MSNBC correspondent
"Here's a reason to fear AOL's control. AOL blocked delivery for the last edition of the AOL Watch newsletter." -- David Cassel, Editor, AolWatch Newsletter
"There is absolutely nothing in Steve Case's background that suggests he is particularly well-equipped to lead a new kind of unimaginably complex media conglomerate into the 21st century, and Wall Street analysts who are so blinded by the hype surrounding this deal that they fail to consider it carefully are likely to be sorry."
(and...)
"Is individualism, free expression, diverse opinion advanced when the information economy breaks down into two or three "old and new" media conglomerates that control virtually all of the archived news and entertainment information online, and increasingly, the means to deliver it?" -- Jon Katz, Slashdot Columnist
So in other words, the Amiga guy sees this as a blow to MS in favour of Amiga. The MS-NBC (check those letters closely!) guy figures this is a dangerous and crass example of overcommercialisation. The AOLWatch guy is worried about AOL threatening AOLWatch more effectively. And then there's JonKatz, who rants against any and all big business and asks rhetorical questions in stunningly long, convoluted sentences.
Bottom line, their biases are showing. Painfully.
While it's true that there's no such thing as an unbiased story, it's pretty sad when the so called "journalists" can't even pretend to look at the other side of an issue, let alone attempt to report on it fairly.
Of course, my biases are showing too; I hate bad journalism. Just ask yourself, whenever you read or watch a news story, does the article say more about the story itself or the journalist reporting it?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It is ironic isn't it that a mega merger of questionable value to consumers and the economy is being carried out while at the same time a company that has synergistic divisions (of which some would say is evil and unhealthy) looks like it is going to be carved up? It all seems so contradictory. One the one hand we are told that it is bad to have a big company with divisions that complement each other because that company is just too efficient, profitable and powerful. Then at the same time, this AOL-Time-Warner-CNN merger takes place because (we are told) it would be so much better if they could all work together and become more efficient, profitable and powerful. So which is scarier? Microsoft as it is right now? Or AOL-Time-Warner-CNN plus god-what-else-in-the-future?
You alarmists are really getting annoying, oops, that is your intention.
/. began, like HP began, like Apple began, like MS began, like Amazon began) becoming big?
Please tell us, just how will Slashdot, or 2600, or Hackernews or Drudge or Lynn Samuels or ANYBODY else will be kept from voicing their views and having them seen, even if AOL merges with Time AND ExxonMobil AND ATT and just about anybody else they feel like merging with?
Whyle you are at it, why were you not brandishing this complaint towards Andover?
What is wrong with a basement business (like AOL began, like
The answer is at the top of this post, all you do is try to invent alarm and profit from said alarm.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
My worries are exactly the same as they always are with big mergers, IE, will the information that is now being presented by one of the conglomeration's names, whether it's AOL, CNN, Time, or one of the non-well-publicized names, be actually accurate and fair, or will it become biased?
The net's still very wide open, and CNN.com is just as accessable as a small site. But tradtional news media (TV and print) are very hard to break into; if there is one source of control for a large majority of this type of media, the source can easily corrupt, dismiss, and distort the facts.
AOL-Time-Warner spans way too many companies, way too many fields to be considered "for the public good". We're not going to benefit from CNN and AOL being able to cross-promote. Really. It's not going to cut costs, it's not going to increase competition, and neither company is hurting.
And BTW - I think that a reporter for MSNBC really shouldn't be calling this "crass commercialization." It's just a tad hypocritical.
Doones
Whatever you do... don't read this.
A corporation of this size and magnitude can only mean one thing...the lowering of the LCD across the board (which was why I was on AOL for less than 24 hours, you can only insult my intelligence so much, then I'll realize it ;^D). OTOH, if they can stream the original Space Ghost and Chuck Jones cartoons to my screen, maybe I'll join up again (maybe with the Uranium edition).
That has been the case for a while. The only difference here is that the conduit is now a worldwide computer network instead of broadcasting rights.
(sorry if duped, couldn't tell if
--
The shareholder is always right.
While I always enjoy any news related to the Amiga (even with the sad state that it is in), I did find the mention a little bit interesting.
Basically, the Amiga technology has been getting pawned off over the years as "technology which is great, might not be quite what you want for a computer anymore, but would do wonders for set top boxes". I've thought that the set top box is perfect for it. If AOL does have some sort of deal that dribbles down to Amiga Corporation, then this could be a significant opportunity to at least keep the Amiga technology alive.
I've used the digital cable system of Comcast in the northern New Jersey area. It consists of a large pizza box for a tuner with a large (and poorly designed) remote control to drive this thing. There are up to 999 channels (and about 400-500 are actually used), and it has built in television listings and primitive programming capabilities (timers, reminders, etc). Essentially, you're getting some sort of MPEG stream from the cable company, and this box is the decoder (you can see the digital artifacts in the signal; similar to what you see on DVDs). While the idea of the technology is great, I think that the actual "computer" behind the box is rather poor; it seems that most of the computing power is dedicated to the MPEG stream rather than to the controls. This would be an excellent job for the Amiga. I won't say that it couldn't be handled by another technology, but the architecture behind the Amiga is quite well suited for this, and if the "Digital Content Behemoth" (AOL/TW) has some sort of relation to the Amiga technology, then why not use it.
My two cents; no refunds.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
.....could very well end up in anti-trust. In the mean time, we the consumer will pay a significant price.
--
The shareholder is always right.
It depends. Economies of scale and all that. Remmeber, Netscape was small and agile, but MS found a way to use their size to their own advantage.
Can the FTC stop this, do they have grounds to?
I mean they stopped Office Max from merging with Staples, to avoid a monopoly in the "office super store" category, I would think that preventing a monopoly on Public information would be a top concern, right?
I submitted this story a couple of days ago, and it was rejected right away, but anyway I do think its a bad and creepy idea, The two companies together have so much potential to control the media that its genuinely frightening. And to think that they would actively censor there users E-mail like that only makes the situation worse.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is the perfect opportunity for Ted Turner to retire.
:)
:)
This is funny:
Ted Turner has compared his reaction to this deal to the joy he experienced when he lost his virginity
I think I would like this deal better... AOL has decided that Time Warner was worth about 70% more than what the public (the stock market) had deemed fair.
You bet he's selling
But how smart is AOL?
learn
to
WRITE!
I don't like the idea of AOL/Time-Warner owning content and delivery any more than anyone else here. But this isn't the real evil, you have to look a little deeper.
AFAIK, any time you want to get high-speed cable access, the cable company becomes your ISP. With this kind of setup, AOL becomes deadweight - or toast, if you'd prefer that term.
The cable companies seem to feel that they need this exclusive 'ISP+physical access' power if they're to recoup the infrastructure investment needed for widespread broadband access.
But these are the headlights AOL sees coming, and they feel they need to be in the driver's seat, or they'll be crunching under the wheels.
I'm under the impression that ADSL is a bit better. At least Bell Atlantic has a short list of alternate ISPs you can use over their lines. Of course using Bell Atlantic as ISP+physical access appears to be the best deal, so I don't know how much better this "open" arrangement really is.
Moreover, I don't know how to break this deadlock caused by physical infrastructure invesement. But it's holding us all back, until these companies figure out a way.
(Neither cable nor ADSL are available to me.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Did you know that the Calgary Herald has been on strike for nine weeks? While the staff have been willing to talk settlement, management refuses to come to the table. For some reason, there's been almost no mention of it in the papers though. Might it be because those papers are mostly owned by the same management?
Regarding Marty Bass's comments:
I can't imagine that this merger will in any way affect local news gathering or viewing. To duplicate the job we do would require setting up a newsroom.
It seems Time Warner is already working on providing local news channels to the larger markets. In December, Time Warner had a very public battle here in Columbus with the local media conglomerate that owns the local CBS affiliate and the city's daily newspaper. The local company has been running a regional news network called the Ohio News Network for the past several years and they wanted Time Warner to add it to their channel line-up. TW refused, saying they did not have the capacity to do this. As a result, the local company threatened to pull the CBS affiliate from TW cable unless ONN was carried. Full page ads were run in the daily and weekly newspapers in town and television ads were run by both companies. Engineers were interviewed by both sides of the issue to support/refute the capacity claims. TW was offering antennae to their customers in case CBS was pulled. Eventually, a settlement was reached, but not before it was revealed that Time Warner has plans to offer their own regional news networks in the next few years in Ohio and other large markets. So yes, local media outlets do have reason to worry as AOLTW will have plenty of resources at their disposal to get such a thing running and integrated with the Internet. And surely they could avoid providing a broken link on WJZ's website to the local news that Marty feels can't be reproduced.
Why doesn't anyone address the real nice outcome from this merger... open access to cable infrastructure is almost guaranteed thanks to this.
How does this work? What's to prevent AOL/TW from only allowing their content on the cable lines? AOL was only screaming for open access because it had no high bandwidth pipes. Now with Road Runner and At Home they do.
Besides, hasn't the FCC essentially discouraged any local initiative to open access on cable lines?
And wasn't the movie industry restricted from owning the theaters and distribution channels for their own movies in the 50s? That helped further erode the Hollywood movie studios' power over the then dominant entertainment medium.
C'mon, tell it right...
This was 1993 or '94 he's talking about, and the group was alt.best.of.internet, where people were supposed to repost good news postings from other groups.
That group went thru regular longwave cycles where a few people would use it correctly, and it would draw an audience, so various idiots would try to take advantage of the attention, and people would go away... rinse, repeat.
AOL finally got around to offering newsgroups at that point, featuring a few 'starter' groups as everyone's default, the first of which-- in alphabetical order-- was aboi.
So AOL people started deluging into the group, asking totally random things like "Where can I get soy fertilizer in Ames, Iowa?" or "Anyone in Duluth want to make hot monkey love tonight?"
Now, the first response of aboi regulars was, disgracefully enough, to play sadistic games with the newcomers, making the situation much worse. (Shooting fish in a barrel was the image that came to my mind.)
It was actually me who realized what the situation was at AOL's end, and started trying to get them a message to change the default for the sake of aboi.
They didn't respond until Weemba posted a message with the subjectline "AOL top brass joins Satanic cult in ritual sacrifices" or the equialent, within hours of which the spigot went off.
Jim Lehrer interviewed Case & Levin last night. text & audio available
To see what the AOL/Time Warner media will say about Microsoft. For one thing, it's obvious Steve Case wants Microsoft dead, but now that he controls more media outlets than any single person, he could very easily start a FUD campaign against Microsoft in order to weaken them. But luckily, stretching of the truth would not be needed - as anyone aware of their unethical business practices knows.
...because I generally think MSNBC does a fairly good job of presenting things in a unbiased way, with regards to things remotely related to Microsoft, and for that, I applaud them.
Brock Meeks, appears to me to be creeping to the 'dark side' with this one though. He calls it crass commercialism, but I can't be convinced for one second that MSNBC doesn't/wouldn't want to do the same thing. Technology + Media.
At the same time, he throws in same tired argument that this is proof that MS does have competitors. Interesting that a similar statement was just released by MS lawyers in their breakup defense. Would AOL/TW be a competitor to MSNBC? Perhaps... probably. However, a wholly outright coup against Microsoft proper? I still don't see that.
Next, we can remove the crap about owning "the content as well as the conduit" and his groundless worries that Case will leave the open access coalition... and the result is that I find nil worthwhile content in the dude's statement. I dunno. Perhaps I don't have my paranoia filter set to +1. But I can't shake the notion that, this time around, it's the Meeks's corporate interests talking.
A corporation of this size and magnitude can only mean one thing...the lowering of the LCD across the board (which was why I was on AOL for less than 24 hours, you can only insult my intelligence so much, then I'll realize it ;^D). OTOH, if they can stream the original Space Ghost and Chuck Jones cartoons to my screen, maybe I'll join up again (maybe with the Uranium edition).
I lower my LCD every night, when I power off my laptop.
George
Then you'd actually look forward to getting free aol mailings ;-)
Could this be the Seven-Headed Dragon of the Apocolypse?
1) AOL
2) Time
3) Netscape
4) Warner Bros.
5) CNN
6) Road Runner
7) Sports Illustrated
And the whore riding on its back?
Steven Case.... Ted Turner?
:)
My version (related but not identical):
The only other explanation is that TW knows that they won't have to open their cable access to others, and can thus force AOL on all their customers (ie, the fix is in).
But I think all the metaphors about strangleholds and big players squeezing out little guys are naive propaganda-- the Web works in exactly the opposite way in the long run, and even a nebbish like Drudge can get a half-million hits a day with no advertising budget.
The packers use AOL, the mappers use the Internet.
The current course of action for AOL-Time-Warner is to merge with C|Net and Healtheon.
The resulting company Warner-AOL-Time-C|Net-Healtheon or "WATCH" really would have the right kinda feel for a big-brother media corporation.
---
"And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a thousand thousand fold."
-----
Cast a Cold Eye
On Life, on Death
Horseman, pass by
--W.B. Yeats' gravestone
Ok, I admit that having so much of our media controlled by one company is a bit scary. But really we don't know how this is all going to turn out. I mean 20 years ago who would have guessed that a small upstart call microsoft would one day surpass a giant like IBM thats been around for over a hundred years. Our world changes rapidly and unpredictably, as it always has. We really have no idea what this merger is going to do. In fact, it may completely fall apart for that matter. The only thing about it that scares me is the monopoly it could possibly generate. Monopolies stifle competition and overcharge the end consumer. The next few years should tell us what is going to happen. If it goes badly then the government should step in and break it up like they did to ATT and are now doing with Microsoft. That is the governments responsibility, to protect the individual right of its citizens. So I'm not going to be negative on this, just yet.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45"
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
What fun, I've got a choice between Microsoft or AOL now for my latest unbiased *cough**cough*bull----*cough**cough* news.
Just shoot me now.
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
I agree with you that all too often, an EXCESSIVE amount of alarm is generated about stories like this (particularly on /.). However, the reason *I* oppose AOL getting big is twofold:
1) AOL's product is crap. It dumbs down the internet for people too stupid to subscribe to a local ISP and install Netscape (or IE) and SAVE MONEY AS WELL AS TIME.
2) I subscribe to RoadRunner for cable modem service which is owned by Time Warner. I am afraid of being forced to subscribe to AOL as a result of this merger if I want to continue to use my cable modem.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
I keep hearing this mantra that we can't allow the news to become less diversified. My question is: where is the diversity at right now? What practical differences do the major news organizations present?
I've found a simple solution to news media. I don't have a television. I don't subscribe to any newspapers. I have no interest in the whitewashed, biased drivel that they wish to peddle. Thanks but no thanks.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. There are competitive checks currently in the market. I got DSL from a provider that had no interest in controlling the content on it.
On another front, I hope this provides some competition to the telcos so that they might dethrone their collective derrieres and actually respond to their customers. The telcos make AOL look like *great* customer service. If you don't believe me, try calling US West about ISDN sometime.
All in all, this deal affects me exactly one whit. I don't use AOL (I don't have to! Imagine that!) and I don't have a television, so I miss out on TW's diverse (after all, the AOL deal is removing diversity, therefore TW must have had diversity) media offerings. Oh well.
I think that the main problem here is that people are irritated that the merger will likely work. A significant part of the population does seem to want the news/Internet/cartoons spoon fed to them. I agree-- this irritates me too. Not because AOL and TW had the wisdom to merge, but because there are seemingly so many people out there that want to be spoon fed.
Not quite. AOL has fallen about 20% since the announcement of the merger, but that was just trend that the stock has been suffering since reaching a mid-Dec high of around 95 (it is around 60 now). The market for AOL is shaky with more than a few people wondering if the merger will go through at all. There's a lot to be worried about with such a multinational to be created and the SEC will probably run them through lots of hoops. Time-Warner, however, jumped from an average of 65 pre-merger talk to over 100. It has since settled at a relatively "calm" 85.
The big problem with this merger is the viablity of AOL to maintain it's advantage as the dominant leader of internet eyeballs. It's profits are in it's ability to reach many different groups with niche advertising. Marketers love this idea. And with Time-Warner onboard, now AOL has something to sell besides itself. Movies, music, books, magazines, etc. The magic word here is retail. Gaining Time-Warner make AOL "respectable" and getting bought out makes TW a "dot-com." The best of both worlds? Well, maybe for them, at least until AOL tanks or gets sued.
AOL's ability to buy TW is dependent on it's stock remaining viable. With the fluctuations of the last month and back tracking to the last quarter of last year, tech stocks have become a gambler's paradise. And everyone is waiting for the bubble to pop. If it does happen after the AOL-TW merger, ugly things occur all around.
Personally, I have some problems with AOL. They tend to make some big publicty mistakes and I'm not sure how well Steve Case can handle a "real" company. If the merger goes through, it does mean that AOL will have a stable income and can ride through another big marketing gaffe (sure to happen when all of those magazine subscribers start getting solictated for AOL accounts and vice-versa). AOL has been able to establish itself as an "e-community," and that may very well stay true. The question how many gaffes will occur. While the current TW top management stays on board to run the TW division, Case still makes the final decisions. Given his track record, that is enough to give me the creeps.
-S. Louie
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
For instance, newspapers (like Time) usually own and control their own presses. Even when they outsource the actual printing, they still control the content. TV stations, radio stations, and the ilk all operate similarly.
And empires in media is not a new trend either. While this takes it to new heights, the media had already essentially completed its transistion to megacorp long ago. And while most sell their souls, their perspectives, and their opinions, the actual reporters are still people and occasionally do stand up for their beliefs.
The fact of the matter is, if they become too useless people just drop out. Look at newspaper readership in GenXers. Almost none of read the old pulp. I think television news listenership will eventually decline also. Radio may be sustained by commuters, desiring some local info, but as our society globalizes via the Internet, we're losing our local focus.
Why? Because locally we can't find enough similarity of interests. There is not slashdotesque TV station in St. Louis, so I hit the news. Its what I care about, not local schools (I probably should, but I'm single, so I don't).
Things morph, but we're still people. Even megacorps have people (like us) that, in the words of Paul (in the Bible), "fight the good fight".
--Jason
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
While it's easy to see that Company A has such and such a share of some market and Company B has such and such a share of some other related market that company C (=A+B) will have both shares and will be bigger, etc., so company C is "more powerful" (translated "probably going to make more money") companies generally (especially big companies like these) don't undertake these sorts of mergers unless there is a specific reason.
Such reasons are usually of the form "If we do not buy that company then their new product will erode our dominance in market X", "our other competitor is beating us by using their Y technology, we'll buy this third company and get the same technology", "we need to sell product Z to strengthen our core business, and their customer base is the perfect market," etc.
Consider this: Time Warner owns immense amounts of copyrighted content -- music, movies, literature, etc. They are one of the big players in this "lock down the MP3's/mpegs/online distribution"-shove-SDMI-down-your-throat "piracy" (bootlegging?) battle. Nobody in their right mind is going to use SDMI over a free mp3 (or mp3-like) format. Why allow the robber-barons of the content kingdom to extend their outmoded royalty/distribution monopoly? Time/Warner realizes this, and they realize that the only way to keep those $ flowing is to get SDMI (or something very similar) into the hands of the mass consumer. How does one do that? Find a large body of mass consumers and shove it in their faces. Make it easier than the alternative.
The biggest body of captive mass consumers sheepish/idiotic enough to accept that SDMI is an easy way to get their music online is the body of AOL subscribers. While partnering with AOL may do the job, buying them out ensures control over distribution in their medium, and will ensure that no non-SDMI system will appear as an alternative to an AOL subscriber. When the base of 20 million (?) AOLers is locked into SDMI then SDMI becomes a de facto standard. A few years down the road and ideally (for T/W) this will be the case for video content as well. And, the perfect target audience has already been recruited by AOL. Hell, now that they own Netscape, and M$ will play ball they can just put SDMI in the browsers too. "Boss, it's a win-win".
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
for those who don't look before they click..
It's too late. the domains aol-rr.com and rr-aol.com have already been taken. By AOL. On Monday.
Kowai.
what the hell does quasi-recently mean? or did you mean recently quasi-open-sourced....
I completely agree with you. I think in a few years (maybe not even that long), the media portions of Time Warner will be spun off into a new company.
I really do not think AOL was ever interested in CNN, Time, Warner Bros, or Sports Ill.... despite what they say.
AOL did this for the access to the cable lines and broad band connection. This was what they felt was their best option (AT&T was certainly not playing their game).
The "New Media" screaming going on is just a smoke-screen... AOL does not give a rat's ass about content.
I submitted it like an hour after it was anounced, but did it get posted? no....
They waited so that they could get Jon Katz's lame-ass take on it.
Here's a funny editorial cartoon from the Globe and Mail.
I don't think this is significant in the way most people think. Certainly, this is a huge deal. No doubt about it, one of the biggest ever, BUT I think this is only the first of it's kind. This is just part of the growth of the Internet (which don't forget, AOL is not, as much as they would like their customers to believe otherwise.) The true Internet is currently so much larger than AOL and will only continue to grow. This was bound to happen at one time or another. The merging of old media with the new. I would look for there to be other mega-mergers of this sort down the road. You can look at it also as a sort of "validation" (if you will) of the Internet as having finally arrived. Until now and perhaps for awhile yet, the Internet has been an experiment, compared to the potential it has yet to realize. The Internet is still having growing pains. Witness the multitude of problems with online shopping during the past holiday season. The Internet is still so very young and relatively wide open where business is concerned. I dare say it has a long, long way to go. Sure, in the future, we'll look back at this merger as being a major turning point (similar to what the open sourcing of Netscape's browser did for Open Source software) in the growth and acceptance of the Internet, but I think it will be seen as just that and not the beginning of the end. (The end being an AOL dominated Internet. Nope, not gonna happen.)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
This thing is laughable -- it's either going to blow apart before it closes (remember, the deal is not yet final), or some investment banker is going to make a mint in ten years cutting it up and selling off the pieces. AOL just lowered its credit rating and massively raised its debt load by this stunt. It saddled itself with a huge and low margin legacy business substantially divergent from its current business. There is no compatibility between corporate cultures. The merger is DOOMED from beginning to end. The collapse will be a strong blow to media concentration, so I suppose its good.
I'm a RoadRunner subscriber, because the phone lines to my apartment are 26 gauge cable, which somewhat truncates DSLs normal 14000 ft. limit. If they were 24 gauge, I'd be laughing, but they're not, and as a result I'm now contemplating the possibility that I'll have to get/use AOL in order to have the fat bandwidth which I now enjoy.
The more I think about it, the less I care. AOL is an annoyance, but I *have* to have the bandwidth. If it's a choice between a dial-up and AOL cable access, I'll suck it up and go with AOL every time.
Now, AOL has two choices in this matter.
1) They can leverage my heroine-like addiction to bandwidth, force me to exclusively use the MacOS half of my Mac/LinuxPPC dual-boot, make me give up my IPMasq/Firewall, make my roommate use the Win98 half of his dual boot, and ensure that the instant Southwestern Bell gets the tech to push DSL out to 14000 ft (or 12000 on that damned 26 gauge cable) from the fiber-fed sac boxes rather than the CO, I switch and my bandwidth dollars go to SBC for the foreseeable future, or
2) they can treat me like RoadRunner does now, with no login scripts, no proprietary clients, just a hot IP address at the end of my Cat5, a mere dhcpcd away, and maybe I'll stay for a while.
It's their choice, really.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
What free market? The monopolistic corporacracy here in amerika?
Gotta say, I'm really impressed with Slashdot's responsibility in reporting the news.
Report just one side of the conversation. Let your personal biases come between you and the story. That's the path to responsible journalism.
How about reporting the fact that the Chairman of the SEC came out and said that this merger was a good thing? He almost never comments on mergers and buyouts, but he commented on this one, and positively at that.
But I forget, that would conflict with Slashdot's anti-AOL stance.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Do it now, gah!
AOL owns winamp. How does that figure into your argument? wouldn't they be more likely to push MP3/winamp?
Mega-merger madness of this mammoth magnitude makes me much more massively melancholy :(
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Uhm, no. Can we please let the stupid fuck moderators out? Thanks...
yeah
For the record though, this whole merger bringd the queasiness upon me, too.
?!??! what the--?
In my opinion the MODERATOR has turned this into one huge flaimbait now, AGAINST HIM or HERSELF! Why!?!? This thing is FUNNY!
ROFL!
Let's get a good mod person up here to give this mofo a 'Funny', eh?!
For myself I don't see this as a threat. I certainly can and will always be able to get online (hey I've managed even when I was homeless) and look at whatever sites I want and if I can't find what I want then I'll create it. What this will do is take the hopeless newbies of the world and trap them in AOL Hell. Start brainwashing children with cartoon characters (ever see WB commercials?) and then have their schools use AOL driven Internet and by the time they are productive adults they'll be locked in. I hope if this goes through that some of the other networks and Internet providers will see their danger and start funding open source software and open content and who knows, maybe even free access to the Net. Sometimes companies do extreme things to save their own necks.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Yes, reporters are people who care. And editors are people that care.. etc. However, they don't hold the real power here. People who care that conflict with the goals and wishes of their organizations will quickly find themselves unemployed; this happens all the time. The mores that will be forced upon everyone are those of the people that lead the companies. Now, those people may have some very freedom-friendly values and practices, but not necessarily so. The law doesn't require it of them since they're private sector.
I do agree though that "tainted" media sources do become passe and get dropped. But let's face it: only the intelligentsia do this. Most people still watch their local/national TV programs and read the paper.
For an extreme example of how controlled mass media can affect public opinion, take a look at the history of WWII (both Axis and Allied). It's a bit difficult to admit that sort of thing could happen today, but why couldn't it?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
HOWEVER, Time Warner does not controll the media... they are a big publishing firm, but they are not the only one. And AOL does not control the net.
A site like, oh, Slashdot can be independently conceived, set up, and eventually bring websites to their knees by sending huge masses of readers to them. The web makes it pretty easy to reach anyone with a modem as long as you let them know you're out there.
It will be a lot easier for AOL to tell people they're out there, but that doesn't necessarily make it any harder than it already is for an independently run operator to let people know they're out there.
I can't say I'm particularly thrilled by the merger... simply because I have little faith in the people who run AOL and I don't know why I should have any more faith in them now that they're also running Time Warner and Turner Broadcasting.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
i'm sorry but most of you guys are just closed minded crybabies.... you see the letters "aol" and instantly you get upset. these same people are sitting on dialup lines wishing they had cable, well guess what with this merger you will likely get cable in your area alot faster.
tci (@home, t-w, microsoft, compaq) currently offer cable modem access in 38 cities, by the end of the year 39 more cities will have cable modem access. now that aol has merged with t-w i'm sure they will have even more funds to increase this number.
this may seem bad to users that already have cable, because now aol will probably start putting users on cable and the idea of losing bandwidth comes into play. but tci is real good about increasing their line to the backbone to accomodate more users so this should not be an issue.
The other important point is editorial bias. We now have more and more companies both making the news and reporting the news. In the ideal world I would imagine that all news reporting companies should be completely financially independent. Perhaps the largest bias that will be introduced is the bias towards the mega-corporation.
The question we should really ask ourselves is, are corporations really democratic. The shareholders may be, but the boards of directors are not, and they are the ones that are increasingly holding all the power.
A final important point is that Steve Case will be on the board of directors. The board will be spilt eight and eight. Mr. Levin will be the CEO. So Mr. Levin is the one to watch.
Click this link to hear some what some policy-type-people have to say.
Courtesy of The American Prospect, the magazine that I work for.
Ha ha!
Well, John, hasn't one company or another always been #1?
In content or access, yes. Not both at once; that's the problem. /me takes a deep breath
My God, I'm defending Katz.
From Brock Meeks: no company should be allowed to own the content as well as the conduit
Hmmm... guess that puts an end to home delivery of newspapers. And those damn local TV stations better quit doing local newscasts as well.
Newspapers do not own the streets. TV stations do not own the electromagnetic spectrum.
Again, you're not thinking this through far enough. The difference is that in your examples, content providers do not control the means of distribution, and therefore cannot prevent anyone else from using them.
Whether TWAOL would actually try to do such a thing is of course debatable, but the situation is uncomfortable nonetheless. . SNF .
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
2) Every fourth line there'll be an ad for "Make Money Fa$t!"
3) Editorials/Letters will be full of things like "Wher IS th COVer Pag Im new to this thank you" ? GAK
I was listening to a song while reading this article which has a suprisingly apt chorus. From the popular Welsh band Manic Street Preachers. IT's called "If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next"
.02.
hmm.. just my
The most insightful commentary I've seen on the merger so far isn't anything in this article -- it's Robert X. Cringely's take. Cringely proposes that, rather than seeing the merger as a sign of AOL optimism about its future, it should be seen as a sign of AOL's pessimism, especially regarding the market fortunes of Net companies.
It makes sense when you think about it. AOL stock has gone through the stratosphere based largely on the idea that AOL is a 'pure Internet play'. Buying a big old media company will end this perception and put a drag on the growth of the stock value. So why should AOL buy Time Warner outright, when they could get the same access to TW content through a less formal partnership, while preserving their hyper-performing stock value?
Cringely argues that AOL is betting that being a 'pure Internet play' isn't going to be a huge benefit for much longer -- in fact, it may become a liability if and when the market bubble bursts. If that happens, suddenly the Amazons of the world look like awful investments as their valuations are "corrected". But AOL doesn't look as bad, because it's got real-world value based on its ownership of Time Warner's many established brands, as opposed to the purely theoretical value that many Net companies have. In other words, AOL knows that it's had a terrific run at the tables, and it's cashing out its chips and socking the money into the bank before its streak turns sour. It's buying insurance while it can still afford to. It's turning its virtual wealth, represented by stock valuation (which could disappear overnight if the public mentality changed) into real wealth, in the form of Time Warner's media properties (which will hold value no matter how the winds blow).
Is this the complete rationale behind the merger? Well, probably not. But viewed in this light it sure does look like a vote of no confidence in the Internet Economy on the part of Steve Case & Co.
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Read my blog.
perhaps in the future the entire world will be controlled by a small group of media dictators. CEO's of the top few megacorps. they can propagandize the world with their beliefs. oh wait, that already happens doesn't it? maybe the world is controlled by the media 'eh?
I know censorship is defined as being that content the *government* blocks, however has anyone noticed the potential here....
The internet is largely self regulating, however with a massive user base and off-line media/advertising feeding AOL with new subscribers this new megacorp could quite literally Control massive chunks of the net.
What would happen if AOL/Warner started blocking, say, slashdot at it's proxies....?
It would cease to exist for 6m+(?) users.
The internet gradually becomes what AOL decides it should be.
It becomes a defacto "ruler"....
Just like in python's quest for the holy grail:
"who are you anyway?"
"I am your king"
"well, I didn't vote for you"
I'm all for a geek "undernet" i.e. the rest of the internet, i.e. that which is not controlled by AOL, but historically smaller nations such as ours have always proven vulnerable to predatory nations like AOL.
I think a war council should be formed, a geek ministry of defence that should be convened to assess risk, perhaps even place spies in the other camp.
Perhaps we should secure our boundaries, by pre-emptively blocking AOL content and prepare for the counterstrikes and dawn raids.
Come fellow geeks! Let us unite!
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Did anyone notice that you can rearrange "Time Warner AOL" to spell "We're Anti-Moral" or "Liar Omen: We Art"?
Of course, you could also spell "Aerial Net Worm", "Arterial Women", "Owe Man Trailer", or "Wear Normal Tie".
"Life has improved immeasurably since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." - Hunter S. Thompson
they may not control the nukes directly but they have the ability to convince the people who do control the nukes directly that perhaps it is in their best interest to use those nukes. that is the power of mass media. it is a global propaganda machine serving the interests of its corporate masters.
Ohh my god.. AOL now owns the WB Network, you mean... programming on the station is going to get WORSE?!?!?!
http://www.angelfire.com/b oybands/98febreze/Portman2.jpg
Oh yeah, we all have to buy our jeans from one place, and there's only one ISP, and one kind of car... get real. There's more real choice now than ever, AOL/TW or not. Perhaps you don't remember when TV consisted entirely of ABC/NBC/CBS and a couple of UHF channels?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Well - just thought that the quote at the bottom of the page applies - VERY MUCH!
"Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
hehe, but for real. I would rather see microsoft left alone to run business and let the market pick the winners.
But DONT let AOL own what i see on TV, how people access the internet and what people see on the internet!
Don't let anymore "You have new mail" movies, sounds, images, spoofs come out. Dont let AOL get into the long distance business, don't let AOL get access to the miles and miles of fiber in several huge cities around the world.
My god the incompetance is huge, I feel sorry for the people that will pickup the phone and have to hear commercials now, i feel sorry for people trying to watch tv, but have banner adds going across the screen.
Even at the least, the spam, the discs being included in everything, the lack of real media attention, the lack of in depth and technical attention, and the people who provide all these very immature feeling services controlling a vast communications and broadcast system
scarry
Well - just thought that the quote at the bottom of the page applies - VERY MUCH!
Monopolies are not really that threatening. Think about it! Windows has been dominant since what? 1989? Well, BSD, Unix Clones (like Linux) managed to thrive as well. People. Really. Does it matter that much to you what service your neighbhor uses? You can still use Prodigy or a plain ISP (IDT for instance) or run BSD instead of windows. Notice how i steer away from Linux, it has become too mainstream and it starting to MONOPOLIZE unix clones market. OH NO!!! MONOPOLIES, LINUX IS A MONOPOLY!!! LETS ALL COMPLAIN AND DRAW UP PROTESTING LAW SUITS!!!
Sorry this was a rant. Please understand me and don't give me a flam moderation. Listen to me please. I am only one, but I am one. My voice matters, my voice counts, and I think my voice makes sense.
PS - sorry if this post was posted several times - problems in my ISP (see! its not just AOL, its the whole analog line system)
"Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
You'd be hard pressed to consider the merger a "monopoly". There are many, many competitors remaining in the content distribution marketplace, and many combinations of companies still possible to provide similar products and services at a competitive price. The biggest thing that will come from this is true open access to Time Warner's cable system, something we all want and AT&T fears. Wow. Increased competition. That makes a monopoly?
You'll notice that AOL aggressively makes many of their services free for everyone to use, just not the cute little interface to content that few of us want anyway... its also unlikely that you would suddenly need an AOL account to view Time Warner content in the real world... but there are now online alternatives to get to them as well. Is that not what we as an online user community want?
To push the world to conduct more of their lives in an online environment? Even if that environment is AOL for the time being until someone else finds the trick for getting the masses to collect?
You'd rather Microsoft own it all? That's on the way to happening.
This is a limited view of reality... why do you care if AOL owns what you do watch on TV?? Microsoft has major investments in NBC. You prefer that.
What is AOL going to get split into? There's still Viacom, the Fox Group, and many, many other independent media providers that need to be online, and MindSpring/Earthlink, Excite@Home, and all the DSL providers left to join up with.
You forget: the average person is incompetent. They need help. AOL helps them. You may not be incompetent. Hence, you would choose not to use those services. The world wants immature. Face it.
You'd rather Microsoft own it all? That's on the way to happening now. People have a very limited view of what's monopolistic and what isn't. AOL is not.
There seems to be a rampant limited view of reality... why do you care if AOL owns what you do watch on TV?? Microsoft has major investments in NBC. You prefer that? AOL will play what people want to watch, just like the media now. They have to.
What is AOL going to get split into? There's still Viacom, the Fox Group, and many, many other independent media providers that need to be online, and MindSpring/Earthlink, Excite@Home, and all the DSL providers left to join up with.
You forget: the average person is incompetent. They need help. AOL helps them. You may not be incompetent. Hence, you would choose not to use those services. The world wants immature. Face it.
I don't understand the "lack of in depth and technical attention". The client may seem hokey to us, but the technology behind it is the most sophisticated in the world. How's that for lack of attention?
Think, before you speak. Microsoft will control you way more than AOL will.
We shall form the Army of 2,000,000 Anonymous Cowards and take back the world for the forces of Freedom, Democracy, and Open Source!!! Fight the 7 headed Corporate dragon! Reboot the planet!
For whatever reason, I often find that MSNBC carries artciles more brutally (of course, deservedly) critical of Microsoft than I find elsewhere in mainstream press.
perhaps GE owns TCE and TCE owns RCA. Or perhaps GE owns RCA which owns TCE. Or perhaps GE owns part of TCE and part of RCA and TCE owns a part of RCA. anymore there is so much corporate incest going on, trying to figure out who owns what just makes this giant web of different corporations who all own some of each other. it's almost like they are one giant supercorporation.
yep, I suspect your scenerio is the most likely
The struggle to survive continues: by 2002, aol/twx/viacom/cbs merges with citi/travelers, consolidating access/content/financial services into an ubermonster that "serves you better". In 2003, it merges with merke/ciba-giegy, adding medication to mass hypnosis, creating unprecedented pocket picking opportunities.. for relatively few.. for the short run.
In the long haul, shareholder managed mediocracies like these will implode. Their urge to command and control the market will win fewer and fewer hearts. More cooperative competitors will route around the sword of the central censor. Wake up and smell the tsunami.
Metcalfe's Law describes exponentially increasing returns as more nodes connect to a network. Hence, AOL MSN etc clobber one another to acquire customers, to aggregate eyeballs, with one simple aim: sell them. Customers defect, exploiting titanic price wars. The price for customer acquisition skyrockets. Investors hoping to cash in on tomorrow's loyal customer might just have their bubble popped one of these days..
Long term loyalty can't be bought. And King Customer grows more powerful by the day. This will profoundly change all business relationships in the free trade of meaningful ideas.
Does a customer's capacity to store information quadruple every three years? Gilder's Law says there will be 27 times more pipe to share information every three years. So in ten years, TiVo nodes might store 75 times more info, but have 60,000 times the capacity to exchange it, and do so transnationally. Try to regulate it. Go ahead, hire more lawyers.
What is the technology telling us? Decentralization is bad news for vertically integrated cash registers. It's good news for reintermediators, and creators who avoid selling ownership out to ubercorps. Great news for chaorganized traders.
Shared ownership in client/server transaction is where it's at. ImagineRadio kinda got it, until they sold out to Viacom. Aolosaurus doesn't get it at all.
Monopolies are not really that threatening.
:)
Well, no- but that isn't really the point. When I argue for a public policy, I usually argue against monopolies because of the costs they (usually) force on society.
We are discussing what is "best" for society, for the internet, and to some largely abstracted amount the world. (Actually, we're replying to a thread blasting journalism, but what the hell. We _should_ be talking about the big stuff).
OH NO!!! MONOPOLIES, LINUX IS A MONOPOLY
Even if linux is a monopoly (which I am not nearly convinced it is), it operates under a license which forbids monopolistic action which would force us to bear a social welfare burden.
I understand that your point is that a monopoly isn't in and of itself bad, and I agree with it. However, remember that if a monopoly acts in its own best interest, the conditions in which that interest would coincide with the net benefit of society at large are fairly rare (increasing returns to scale, etc). They exist, but I couldn't name an industry that favors these kind of properties off the top of my head.
My voice matters, my voice counts, and I think my voice makes sense.
Some people may dissagree with this, but I do not. You do matter, count, and to some extent make sense, but there is more to this than just the labeling of entities. We are deciding our opinions on the public policy of a government that has the power to enforce its will. If the government is to act in the best interest of its constituents, it must keep corperations, and monopolies in particular, under close scrutiny. Not necessarily to hinder them, but to make sure they aren't violating the trust of the public which supports them.
Wow. I sound like a anarchist. Ah well... caution is never ill advised.
Pax -- Ob
You really do not need to freak out about AOL destroying the world or even squelching free speech. News media have always presented biased stories. AOL may supress the free speech of some people for a little while, but the average non-AOL user should have nothing to worry about. Also, three major things have happened in the last few days: AOL and WB stocks took hits, IBM decided to support Linux for their products, and SUN made a deal with a UK company to sell them $500,000,000 in wireless tech. It all evens out, so don't get your pocket protectors all rumpled about it. - crazy_swimmer
..
Nah, The Onion hs it right here:
h tml
http://www.theonion.com/onion3547/seven_headed.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
*Yawn*
scratcha scratcha scratch
(checks watch)
(clicks to refresh Slashdot - no change)
Sigh.
(brightens visible)
(rises from chair and heads to candy/soda machines)
And that's about it for me. Guess I'm too dumb to appreciate the horror!
**>>BELCH
Time Warner sucks... anyone seen their http://www.entertaindom.com (EDumb)?
A decent Network is finally here.
Seems like a logical plan to _me_.
This brilliant observation by JonKatz highlights the true danger of the AOL/TW merger, and why it should be stopped, by the (comparatively small, obscure, non-pervasive organization known as the) US Government.
The AOL/TW plan is clear. First they'll offer the huge flock of sheep known as "American consumers" cheap access to all that TW content. Next they'll make that exclusive access, so nobody who doesn't use the AOL/TW ISP can see TW content.
Then they'll deliver the final blow: make AOL/TW access so unreliable, so frustrating, that, for most Americans, it'll not be worth even logging on.
By then, we'll be so mass-hypnotized that we'll believe the only real entertainment comes from AOL/TW, so that when The System doesn't work, it'll never occur to us to:
- Turn on the TV (besides, AOL/TW will make sure it works only via their Internet access)
- Turn on the radio (ditto)
- Use another ISP (AOL/TW will make all other ISPs disappear, or at least appear to from the American consciousness)
- Read a newspaper
The end result is that Americans will be completely in the dark about what is going on in their own country, at which point Steve Case et al will use a crack team of hand-picked cyber-terrorists to overthrow the government.All Americans will be shown is that, apparently, our new President is a certain well-known rabbit, and, by then, we'll think that's great, for pretty much the same reasons that people like Donald Trump and Warren Beatty are taken seriously as presidential candidates today: because the media has convinced too many of us they're "cool", which we somehow believe == "intelligent", "capable of leadership", etc.
AOL/TW. The End Is Near. And, by the time it comes, there won't be an NRA-type organization ready to defend your freedom -- the only guns available will be "secured" by high-tech devices that, not coincidentally, get owner-fingerprint-updates from AOL/TW's online database, which'll allow them to disable all guns instantly when The Moment arrives.
(Yes, this is sarcasm. Fearing AOL/TW on the basis of AOL's "service" is like fearing McDonald's replacing all other restaurants on the basis that McBurgers often have insufficient ketchup.)
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
. . give a shit what Jon Katz thinks.
_________________________
George W. Bush-Born with a silver spoon up his nose.
They really need to get their fuckin priorities straight. If they created software that worked, ran UN*X based, they might have something. They don't need Time/Warner, they will just exploit them. They will use them for media saturation and such. If you get Sports Illustrated, expect five free CDs every time you get your mag, or twenty pages of ads. (It pisses me off that they use CDs now. If they used Disketts still, then I could have dozens of disketts, and I would no longer have to buy them) :) (C) 2000 By Mr. Roboto. All Rants Reserved.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Mind you, GE and NBC are still part of that whole military-industrial-entertainment complex (GE is a major defense contractor).
-j
I just finished a great book by John Pilger - "Hidden Agendas" that, IMHO, would end you holding this opinion.
Media control equates to control over the political process these days, as well as a way to sway, in bulk, those who have no access to other opinions.
I'm not saying there is anything inherently evil about AOL, TW or Murdoch for that matter, but diversity and an "open process" are good, and that's why we are here!
cheers,
dean
Can't find a damn thing on deja.com
I'd really like to read that post.
Yeah! Tell it like it is! We all know Rob is the great Satan. He's sold out and joined forces with The Man.
Damn The Man!
Damn The Man!
</SARCASM>
Jeez, people. Lay off the capitalist-pig conspiracy theories.
Someone had my idea:
atwol.com
Which? Online (ATWOL2-DOM)
2 Marylebone Road
LONDON, NW1 4DF
UK
Domain Name: ATWOL.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Stevens, Alan (AS1724) alan.stevens@WHICH.NET
+44 171 830 6379 (FAX) +44 171 830 7651
Billing Contact:
Stevens, Alan (AS1724) alan.stevens@WHICH.NET
+44 171 830 6379 (FAX) +44 171 830 7651
Record last updated on 13-Apr-1999.
Record created on 13-Apr-1999.
Database last updated on 13-Jan-2000 13:23:09 EST.
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
In fact, AOL's web site, AOL.com, is fairly weak, and hardly provides the functionality of Yahoo's site or even some of the other smaller competitors.
Here's the real point - no one can control content on the web - only at worst filter through browsers or ISP. Time_Warner-AOL-Fox-MS-IBM-AT&T-what-the-hell-else may be able to attract clicks and attention, may speak with a megaphone and have the biggest stall in the marketplace of ideas - but the internet is still free, and will remain so. For FREE you can get your space on the web - you're right to speech is protected and available. If you've got nothing to say that attracts you the attention you crave, why should anyone else care?
Unless they police the hell out of the net and herd *everyone* into the AOL coral to listen to TW produced music. I wish them and all the lock-'em-in portal players ever declining margins and all the slack revenues they so rightly deserve.
Skateboarding youth are more informed than these mega-corp "news and entertainment" conglomerates.
Anyone remember the "Iraqui's are killing babies in their incubators" story. Another pinnacle of journalistic insight. A hard fought effort to bring YOU the TRUTH err and sell your demographic to Budweiser ....
e.con how the internet undermines democracy by Bill Gutstein
When I think of AOL (Sorry, AOL users)...I think of the sappy little cartoon "Pinky and the Brain". "Gee Brain, whaddya wanna do tonight??" "Same thing we do every night Pinky...Try to take over the world". I work for a major ISP and AOL haunts me every single day since the release of the demon software also known as AOL 5.0...If a happy little Windoze user (is there such a thing?) installs the software (even partially) AOL's software replaces the Dial up adapter in Network with an AOL Dial up Adapter which causes any other Non-AOL connection to go wonky. Even if the person (poor fool that they are) uninstalls the software, the cursed adapter remains. The fix is simply a removal of the Network components and DUN, however should the person want to use both ISP's it's pretty much a lost cause. Even if the adapter is removed it will re-install itself once the person connects to AOL again. Due to this and other little AOL "glitches" I have vowed to wash my hands of anything with AOL affiliation. Going on the current trend I expect to be living in a dark corner of a basement, because even my car has gone AOL. (We've all recieved that silly 'What if AOL made cars' e-mail). Road Runner? Forget it. I've been fortunate enough to locate a SDSL provider in my area, I'll go with that until AOL gets its grimy little hands on that too. This "bug" plagues my entire existance...I take escalations regarding AOL 5 on a daily basis and somehow the blame still falls on us. Go fig. -Q
Some people deny with conviction that the AOL/TW merger will affect them in any way because they are not AOL users, while other claim it is the end of the world. This is a bad thing for many reasons. AOL for a long time has owned only their private network (a glorified virtual private network), then they got into the media game and started buying up high speed internet access. If AOL (or any company) has control of a majority of the data pipes coming into people's houses they control the data coming into people's houses. Now they own alot of pipes, they merge with Time Warner who happen to own a good deal of the data coming through those pipes that AOL owns. Now AOL has the ability to control the wires and the data. Smaller companies will have a real tough time competing with AOL since AOL can get alot of data into the homes and do it cheaper than anyone else. The small companies will have to sell out to MSN or some other huge network so we end up how we started, a handful of huge mega networks providing all of our content.
After AOL owns as much of the content and home pipes as they can get their hands on, what will stop them from going after huge backbone providers like MCI and AT&T? If they own the backbones of the internet there is no room for competition, the T3 your website is on may be owned by some co-lo company but if the backbone is owned by AOL and they don't like you, you're screwed. Personally I don't want to see content only provided by Disney, AOL, and MSN. We are slowly turning into a giant corporate market. In the future there won't be countries, just different market demographics. The DOJ needs to look into AOL for a monopoly investigation, I don't think any company will buy all the media content they can and then share it in the name of good business.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
This is how it's different for NBC et al.: NBC and others cannot possibly prohibit or block others from using the airwaves because they don't OWN those airwaves.
Yes, they own the transmitters, etc., but that's not the "conduit," their conduit is the public airwaves and they have no "lock" on those airwaves.
If you own the conduit you are in total control of what flows through that conduit (newspaper trucks are not the conduit in this scenario, in that case the city streets are the conduit.)
If AOL and TW decide to, they can prohibit ANY type of content they want from flowing over their distribution system (cable, etc). If they don't want MSNBC.COM to be accessible, they can block people from getting there; if they don't want to carry Republican political information or whatever, they can BLOCK IT, prohibit it.
That's why it's dangerous to own the conduit and the content.
So, will I need to hit Shift-Reload on my cable box to see the latest news on CNN? 7:^)
I have ordered a new cable provider, and will cancel my Time Warner cable as soon as Americast is in place. It ain't a solution, but it's an acceptable "think globally, act locally" patch.
For a brief period, I was willing to cut AOL some slack because they left ICQ the hell alone (okay, I will grant that I run ICQ 0.95 or something like that, because I refused to upgrade after AOL bought ICQ). After what happened the last time I upgraded Netscape (force-installing AOL IM on my machine and neither asking my permission nor providing a graceful uninstall), though, AOL promptly returned to its natural position as emergency backup Antichrist of the digital world. I went out and bought Opera that night (IE was never an option, of course).
A media behemoth the size of AOL scares the biologically processed waste matter out of me. TW was already too damn big, and the compression of controlling entities over media should rightfully scare any civil libertarian. There are too few companies controlling too many information flows -- this is not the hallmark of a healthy democracy. Remember CBS's spiking of the tobacco story: it's not unreasonable to think that AOL may try to wield that kind of power over CNN. And consider this: how long will AOL users have before the Time Warner part of the new company demands expunging of all MP3s from their websites?
The only thing about this news that's remotely amusing is watching Microsoft scream "Look! It's a competitor!" Yeah, right, Bill. Talk to me when Steve Case brings out an OS.
ikaros, definitely worried.
You're only as young as the last time you changed your mind -- Timothy Leary