Slashdot Mirror
AOL May Be Forced To Open AIM
bearclaw writes: "Apparently, AOL might have to open up their IM protocal, according to a CNN article. The FCC seems to be concerned about their 90% IM dominance. Imagine that." This has been rumored several times before, with no action from the government. Meanwhile, AIM continues to dominate the scene.
All communications over the internet intended for the general public should be free and open standards even if the exact source code of a given program isn't free. This goes for RealPlayer and Winblows Media Player as well as AIM and their ilk.
Just because the FCC, etc. has refused to require open communications standards in the past doesn't mean that they won't require it in the future. I think this is long overdue.
Today AIM, tomorrow WMP and RealPlayer!
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Unless AOL has done this, then the DoJ has no power here.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I think the way AOL is detecting unproper use of their servers is by exploiting a bug in their own clients. I use GAIM a lot, and I liked the Oscar protocol support, so when it was shutdown, my roommate and I fired up the old packet sniffer... AOL sends out some very odd looking large packets right before it IMs you and kicks you off the network. We beleive that the Win32 client has a bug where those large packets result in a buffer overflow, and the client ignores the garbage packets, while in the reverse engineered version, the client response is basically, "huh? what in the world was that??" and when AOL sees that, it kicks you off.. probably a few more weeks of packet sniffing...we might have a patch ready :)
---
I post links to stuff here
Exactly how much control is the government supposed to have when it comes to regulating software? So lets say for example I have a website thats getting 3 million visits/day can the government step in and tell me to give other websites my traffic? I think not, so why should AIM be any different?
By the very nature a corporation is a result of government regulation on a free market. A corporation is an artificial entity created by the government, through regulations and laws.
A business that goes crying to the government, "Whaa! The *real* free market is too scary to compete in! Let me incorporate! Protect me!" has little business complaining to the self-same government about being regulated for using the advantages of incorporation that are government regulated and government enforced and otherwise are government meddling in the balance of the market place.
I do not see how a free market should involve the idea of government-created artificial entities competing against individuals.
Whatever happened to ICQ? It's what I use, it's what my friends use. I know there's well over 70,000,000 numbers issued, however many are active is anyone's guess, but still, 90% of the market is AOLIM? That's sickening among other things considering the worthlessness of AIM.
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
Oh, wait a minute...
Anyway, I see what you're getting at. But I don't see any difference between mandating interoperability of IM protocols and mandating interoperability of telephone networks.
I think you're afraid of allowing the FCC to put any restrictions on the contents of a pipe for fear that they'll start saying things like "you can't send THOSE bits over those wires". I see forced-IM-interoperability as different:
- Motive: force interopability
- Number of people that benefit: tons
- Terms: narrow and concrete (THIS protocol, THIS environment, etc...)
- Complexity: simple terms
- Length of time until FCC will have to make another similar mandate: 2 years
Because of all this, each such mandate will be very public and can easily be understood, and can be debated in public. If the FCC starts making vague mandates against small companies and it only benefits 5 people in unpredictiable ways, then you can start getting worried that they might pull some funny stuff. Right now, each mandate is too visible for a long period of time to let anything happen without it being glaringly obvious to a lot of people.--
I think everyone should be left alone. AOL has brought people to the Internet. Face it. Most of you (myself included) would be out of a job, had AOL not brought millions of people to the Internet using their AOL Chat programs and ideas. Hell, take it another step forward, and watch me get marked down to flaimbait / offtopic / whatever, but had Microsoft not created a OS for stupid idiots, then AOL would not have created a system to allow them to communicate, which would bring hundreds of thousands of businesses to the Internet, looking for any extra money.
Some say porn built the current Internet, but I think AOL had a bigger hand: they provided an easy way for people to chat.
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
Think about this - every ephemeral instant message transits Northern Virginia.
Actually, in the case of ICQ, only offline messages are sent via the server.
If a user is online, messages are sent directly peer-peer (assuming the client/clone supports it).
As well, there is a degree of encryption on the newer protocols, but of course this is pretty limited and already cracked.
Question 1:
How is it that the FCC or the DoJ or anyone else for that matter can use the Merger of AOL/TW to require the release/breakup of the AOL dominance? AOL's dominance in IM has _nothing_ to do with TW, nor will it become more or less dominant as the result of the merger. So how can they use the merger as the springboard for this campaign?
Question 2:Does the FCC have any rights to regulate IM? I would only expect the FCC To become involved in merger proposals when communications assets (such as radio/tv stations, etc) are involved.
-- "I will never let my schooling get in the way of my education." --Mark Twain
Use GAIM instead! It's Open Source and works great!
It's their damn program, and they should be able to do what they want with it. Jesus H. Christ.
The government should have NO BUSINESS in this.
(and as a note -- I would like to see all chat programs using 1 protocol, but still -- the government forcing people to open it is WRONG. It is their program.)
BilldaCat
I think it's the whole "chat" mentality that the Internet is still trying to outgrow. Once people start using the net for communication instead of "Hi" "Hi" "How are you?" "Fine. You?" "Great." "Well....see ya!", the world will start to change.
Got Rhinos?
Don't dismiss IM so quickly. Have you ever seen kids and preteens using a computer with an Internet connection? The "Hi-Hi-How are you-Fine dialog" you describe is typical kidspeak.
The kids I have seen using computers LIVE for IM. That ICQ "Uh-Oh" goes off dozens times per evening! If IM had been around way back when, I wouldn't have spent my evenings on the phone, driving my parents crazy.
Now I use IM as a work tool on a daily basis, communicating with geographically distant colleagues. It's very handy to know who's available to answer a quick question. Email and the phone can't give me that functionality
The huge prevalence of IM won't wax and wane with the net's maturity. As the kids will eventually grow out of this communications phase, they will be followed by the next wave of soon-to-be pre-teens.
IMO, IM (eesh - acronymity!) is here to stay, for both societal and practical reasons.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.
Though this is off the orignal topic (and moderators are often overly sensitive about that), it certainly is on topic about this. On the other hand, I will point out that the post above certainly is NOT informative about this issue.
That said, GAIM has some serious shortfalls, though it also has some very nice features.
Positives first. I love the auto-logging feature. I like the fact that it allows you to customize your html instead of having everything forcibly converted for you like AIM does (however, it isn't even close to wysiwyg as you type it all in using the tags--I love it, but certainly not everyone does). No space reserved for annoying adverts.
Negatives. While it does support saving/loading your buddy list to/from a file (necessary, because the list you store on AOL's servers mysteriously disappear quite often), it is unable to import AIM lists (yes, very minor problem, but it makes migrating over harder initially . . .). Furthermore, you can't see a person's away message by using 'Get Info' or similar means (AIM will make it viewable above a person's profile . . .).
Some of this may have changed recently, but I know that these are some problems I initially had with it. I know that my buddy list that was being stored on AOL's server disappeared a day or two ago. I also know that there hasn't been an exploitable, intentional overflow discovered in GAIM.
What's the difference in freatures between TOC and the closed protocol, anyway? Does anyone know? I've never seen the two compared. . . though I guess I haven't looked too hard, either . . .
When I can see a protocol on a giant wooden spool, I'll agree with you.
-B
At the moment, they aren't doing horrendously nasty things with AIM but what would you say if the following happened: AOL installs filters on IM (since they controll it) to block all messages that criticize every movie released by Warner Bros.? How many people would notice if they did that? Now you could argue that it's their service, they should be able to block whatever they want, but if there is no other service and no way for anyone to see how IM worked, what would prevent the censorship? Things like this are why the FCC gets involved.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Doesn't it make sense that some instant messenger has to be dominant? Think about it this way...
I don't want to have to use ICQ to talk to Bob, Yahoo Messenger to talk to Frank, and AOL's IM to talk to Sally. It's a pain in the ass. It eats more system resources than necessary and generates too many little icons in my tray.
What happens is this: I tell Bob and Frank that the AOL messenger is way better than ICQ and Yahoo. Plus, it can sneak around corporate firewalls by allowing you to specify a port, unlike Yahoo's IM. They try it out and like it. They start moving their friends over and pretty soon I uninstall ICQ and Yahoo, because I've got everyone I chat with on the superior IM system.
Somebody has to have the dominant IM. The fact that AOL is winning this one has nothing to do with the merger. It's just a better IM.
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
Easy solution to that: 'Simply' rewrite the protocol to use a Gnutella-like system of non-centralized relaying. At that point, AOL is only using development resources, not physical resources.
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
For better or worse what you want will never happen. IM is a gigantic trend that will not die. Besides, for many email is not real-time enough and irc doesn't fit the bill.
Is the whole pager things silly? Or cell phones? Or PDAs? No, they each have their own places. For some even email is too much. Certainly many people either misuse these things or are overwhelmed, but that's no different than overeating, drinking, or procrstinating.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
While I'd love to see IM technology converge to a point where the user has the greatest flexibility, I don't see a 90% market share in the instant messaging market as a reason to force AOL to open their system.
I'd be happy seeing AOL voluntarily open up their protocol but I cannot agree with the FCC enacting any policy requiring AOL to open up their service or network to outside IM users.
If Microsoft, Yahoo!, or anyone else wants to run the AIM protocol, let them flip the infrastructure/bandwidth bill to do so for their users, just as it is today for an email service.
(This is coming from a guy who runs a dedicated messaging machine with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, and MSN Messenger running.)
It is almost as if this IM business is a diversion from the real issue that you have the largest ISP in the USA (AOL in the USA has as many customers as all other USA ISP's combined) joining one of the largest mass-media forces in the USA. AOL is a content provider... Liars meet liars!! And don't get me started on all the problems with mass media. I don't see how this provides ANY advantage to users, consumers. The more this type of power is collected into smaller administrative spaces, the more control and power these people assume.
I guess that it's a bit unfortunate you do not work in a workgroup environment that is switched on enough to use it properly.
I love not having to pickup the phone, launch an email client or run up to the the second or third floor of the building to speak to a coligue.
As an American living in Europe I am quite happy that IMing brings me closer to my friends and family almost on a daily basis w/out shelling out money to the telcos for international phone charges.
I have not explored 'public' chat rooms w/AOL or ICQ
I am excited about any product that brings a bit more humanity and warmth to something traditionally in terms of rich human interaction. For better or worse, IM is here to stay. Be happy you don't have to have Win/* to use it.
--------------------
I use AOL and have turned off Instant Messaging. It's ok if you're just screwing around and someone suddenly wants to chat, but it's a damned nuisance if you're in the middle of something. It's like getting a phone call in the middle of a TV show. I've never installed any IM clients outside of AOL for this very reason. The attraction for anyone besides kids who want to gab with their friends escapes me. Send me an email if you need something. If I'm there, I'll see it; if I'm not, you won't have wasted your time. I guess this means that I don't particularly give a bleep if AOL dominates this arena.
...
Ok, I feel better now
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Media being the press? Then the government has no business in there anyway. Here, let me quote from the US Constitution: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
However, this looks more like the FCC ordering AOL to open up their SERVERS, not their protocol. In which case it still is none of the government's business, even if it is a merger case.
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you support real Open Source and/or Free Software, then maybe I'll have sympathy for you as you are stuck with a single vendor and difficult transitions. As it is, there are several free/open solutions to the chat question. IRC being the first one that comes to mind. This would also allow the company to set up approved channels on the server, set bots on the channels, monitor activity, have departmental channels which can be logged and checked for trends/FAQ-making, etc etc-- based on your needs. As it is you are likely sending business-sensitive data out to AOL's server and then back inside the company firewall (unless I've totally got it wrong how AIM works). Your network people are right to eliminate this client. The sooner the better, imho. And I don't see what's wrong with using any peer-to-peer file sharing at work, it's bound to save on the e-mail server, which has to store, log, and hold all those attachments.
I do not have a signature
I posted this in a smaller thread but I think it deserves a little more visibilty. Sorry for the duplicant info.
Hello, Rob Flynn here, Gaim Author/Maintainer.
Personally, I think that the FCC should mind their own business. True, I would love to have the protocol opened to me but I would rather it be on AOL's on free will. If the FCC starts forcing other companies to open their protocols then what? AOL does not force AIM on us. If you do not like it, you have many other choices. I do not see an monoply issue here. I believe that if the FCC is going to force AOL to release their protocol information then we should be given access to private government communications information. That's just my opinion, though. And now, to answer some questions.
Importing AIM lists: The latest version, 0.10.0 (released two days ago), supports importing of gaim, Aim2 and Aim4 buddy lists This should solve the problem of migrating from Windows to Linux.
As for the issue of not being able to see a persons away message: There's not really much any of us can do here. It's an OSCAR only thing. However, if you run gaim with our currently experimental OSCAR support, it does have the ability to view other's away messages without the need of sending them a message.
There are a few differences in features between the two protocols. The OSCAR server provides us with many more fun things:
The ability to rvous request. These requests can be any type of direct connectiong ranging from: file transfering, direct IM, talk, etc. It also allows us to view other user's away messages and allows us to send messages of 8k in size while TOC only supports messages of 2k in size. DirectIM allows messages of unlimited size (I think the limit is like 2gb if you do the math :-P). Oscar also has support for buddy icons. I do not like these but I know many people that do and know that many people have requested this feature.
Anyways, we do, however, have the ability to receive files from windows users and we can ACCEPT requests from oscar clients. For example, if you are in windows and click 'Get File' on my name, I will receive that request and then can send you a file. Having full oscar support would open up full functionality to us.
Anywyas, I hope this has cleared up any questions you may have. Take care!
---
Rob Flynn
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
Most, if not all, of the discussion seems to focus on the interoperability at the networking level and the openness/lack thereof of the AIM servers. This is obviously crucial to being able to communicate between services, but I think an important point is being ignored.
What happens to the interoperability of features and it's effects on innovation once the networks are interconnected? What happens if I'm on ICQ and want to chat with someone on AIM using the IRC-style (where text appears as soon as typed)? What happens when my AIM client wants to send one of these little user-set identifying icons to a friend on ICQ? And how is my AIM going to distinguish between an N/A message and a DND message from ICQ? How about when Company X decides to add a completely original feature to get a niche in the market? How will ICQ handle AIM's talk feature? Sure, we can have something such as W3C establishing standards as with HTML, but do we really want a repeat of the IE and Netscape bungled implementations/proprietary standards/lack of support? Think before you leap.
HTTP is an open protocol, but that doesn't mean I can't deny anyone I want from accessing my web server. Judging by the CNN article, they're talking about making AOL open their servers to access by their competitors, not just making the protocol an open standard.
Of course, the fact that they need to "open access to their servers" in the first place just shows that the system is a hack, not a design, in the first place.
Are there really so few people who realize how stupid a centralized IM system with a flat namespace is in the first place? Can you imagine if every email on the internet went through some huge central cluster at email.com before getting to you? Why exactly should I need to be identified by ICQ 5551234 (shades of Compuserve) or roystgnr (flashbacks to Prodigy), rather than roystgnr@jabber.com, or (once my employer/university starts running Jabber) by an existing email address?
Think about this - every ephemeral instant message transits Northern Virginia.
Law enforcement and intel concerns are driving this one, folks. The last thing the feds want is another decentralized communication protocol - it forces them to lean on too many people to get easy access (*cough*carnivore*cough). "Competition" is a decoy, as should be obvious - opening AOL's servers is only going to guarantee an AOL monopoly on the server/protocol side.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Why would you want to run servers if anyone can use them?
Put yourself in AOL's shoes. Suddenly you have to let people use your servers and get nothing in return. Will you (a) happily carry on paying for those servers or (b) wait for Microsoft, etc. to produce their own AOL compatible messaging servers and then stop paying for your own now that MS are carrying the load?
You have to allow people to make money, or they won't play the game.
_____
My Journal
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The FCC should have *NO* business here, whatsoever. There is nothing that needs regulating.
We aren't talking about some kind of monoploy.. or some kind of limited medium. There's room for thousands of IM type things out there.
This isn't even telco, where there is sort of a public-land issue, when it comes to IM, it's a limitless resource.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh, wait, AOL owns ICQ also.
Would ANYONE care about being able/not able to be messaged at any time by people on AOL?????
"I jist bot this computar - and I figuerd out how to maek lots of money with it. Jst send $1 to me and ad yoru naem to th botom of the list"
"WHAT'S THIS PROGRAM DO TEST TEST TEST TEST HELLO"
"Hey? Where's all the porn?"
etc
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
The FCC is opening a dangerous door if they think they have authority over a protocol or applications-layer operation, such as AIM. They regulate raw pipes, not applications or for that matter IP (which is technically "information service", not "telecommunications").
If AOL's behavior is in some way "anticompetitive", there are other agencies (DoJ, for instance) who do have general say over that matter. And mergers do invite scrutiny. So if there's some specific DoJ question to be answered around their IM networks, then fine. The FCC does have some authority over cable systems, which AOL is trying to buy. But the FCC should NOT consider IM to be theirs to regulate.
Well, here's my take on the issue: the AIM network is infrastructure, whereas eBay's listings aren't.
If you want to run an auction site that competes with eBay, then you can, and eBay can't stop you.
If you want to provide a competing IM service, on the other hand, you have to use the AIM protocols, because there are already millions of users of the AIM protocols, and they're not likely to switch systems. You're stuck, unless you can access the protocols.
Protocols in specific, and infrastructure in general, must be made public, or you end up with monopolies that can't be unseated, because you can't compete with them. Example: the number of people who can't change operating systems because they have to edit Microsoft Word files.
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
Seen in that light, it's a little different -- it's not "You have to do this", but "If you're going to become an even larger company with your fingers in this many more pies, you're going to have to open up a little more on the monopolies you've got currently."
Sounds a lot more reasonable that way. If AOL doesn't want to open up IM, they can just not merge with Time-Warner.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
IM dominance? The gov cares about IM dominance!? What about MEDIA dominance?? That is a lot more important than IM dominance.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
AOL May Be Forced To Open AIM
Newsflash! This just in! After a decision by the courts last week to force America Online to open READY, experts say the same will be done with AIM.
One expert, Mr. Frank Furter, was quoted as saying, "They're holding a monopoly over all this IM business. We got them to open READY, AIM looks to be next... and we won't stop until we get them to open FIRE as well."
AOL employees were seen nearby loading their rifles and snickering evilly.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Have a look at Jabber.org for the project's home, JabberCentral for info on clients, and Jabber.com if your company needs custom client or server programming done, or commercial-grade support for your Jabber needs. (Disclaimer: The latter entity pays my salary...)
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Speaking from a corporate enviorment...
We have been trying to lock down the workstations configuration so people stop f***ing them up with screensavers and whatnot. Recently we released the list of "approved" aplications and recieved a ship storm that AIM was not on there. it seems that several folks have taken to using this as their primary form of interstate comunication between departments/facilities. This forced our upper management to look into creating our own "chat thingie" without the file transfer (this is buisness after all). AOL is a closed standard, preventing us from acomplishing that. The point is, management was taken compleetly by suprise by the fact that this "toy" had sudenly become a buisness critical aplication and the failure of AOL to open it's standard has actualy impacted our buisness. Go DOJ go DOJ!!
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I SERIOUSLY doubt AOL has even close to 90% of the messaging market. ICQ, Yahoo, and MSN may not have the same userbase AIM does, but there's no way they constitute a mere 10% of the market.
Perhaps they're forgetting that people can use more than one messenger at a time? I know I do, having friends on different messaging systems.
--
We may all prefer 1 'open IM network' but this isn't right. Why the bloody hell should AOL be forced to allow other firms to use THEIR service resources? Isn't this conflicting with the court's ruling that the meta-auction site (Cannot remember the name.) cannot index eBay's site because it robs eBay of the ability to use it's own resources? Hm, courts [may] force AOL to allow other firms to use their resources, but courts also disallow firms to use the resources of other firms. I think the WORLD's court systems are really out of touch with fucking reality.
Don't you know it's better when we share?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>>2. The FCC governs public or quazi-public mediums. The internet is not public. It is a private tool. It was developed by the US government but now is not a tool of the US government. It belongs to no one and at the same time the people who own the hardware that make it go.
Which is it? A private tool or one that belongs to no one, therefore owned by the public? I believe you're right on the latter. The government turned it over to the private sector in 1990 or so. But, while the internet backbone is privately owned - like telephone lines, it is also a public resource, like telephone lines.
The telephone industry is highly regulated by the FCC as far as technical standards are concerned, but not as far as what you can say over the phone. This alone I believe is a precedent for the FCC to be able to regulate technical standards on the internet if they wish to (right now they don't).
I really do believe that it would be a Good Thing(TM) for the FCC to assure that all communications protocols intended for the general public (ie, IM, Streaming Media, and the like) be open standards. There can be many open standards, but all content intended for public consumption should be available to all (for example, Winblows Media Player content should be available for Linux users). This would not prevent such things as secure eCommerce or on-line banking - things that require secure protocols. But these things are private, not for the public at large.
The bottom line, in my view, is that if content is intended for the general public, be it web-pages (NO M$ "extensions" should be allowed), streaming media (Anyone should be able to write a RealPlayer or WMP clone), or IM (either AIM or GAIM should work), the standards and protocols must be made public. Even if there is no FCC rule requiring a certain standard, it is the job of the FCC to assure that all public content is available to all.
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Big deal - the real information of interest is not in the content of your messages, but who's in your "buddy list".
The name of the game is traffic analysis, building a map of who's talking to whom.
I'm willing to bet that the FBI's foot-draggin on carnivore is directly related to the fact that they may have been saving the message bodies of only current suspects, but saving everyone's headers for future reference. Too bad the truth is unlikely to come out barring a major fsck-up in document handling by the FBI (which is how COINTELPRO got blown wide open).
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The government should have NO BUSINESS in this.
At first blush that was my reaction too - WTF is the FCC (!!) doing telling AOL or anyone else to open thier code?
Then upon further reading, it turns out the FCC is doing this as part of the AOL / Time-Warner merger deal. In that regard it makes sense. The merger gives one company a hell of a lot of clout, getting them to shake loose a few proprietary things as part of the deal sounds like a good idea to me.
AOL sigle-handedly created the IM market, ICQ jumped in much later. Yahoo and MS weren't on the scene until everyone and their dog had an IM client, of course they can't break into the market.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"