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.
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
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.
AOL has a "monopoly" on the instant messaging market. In other words, they can and will stifle future development of IM products BECAUSE they dominate.
You're confused. Monopolies are not illegal, and they can't be broken unless the corporation with the monopoly poses a significant barrier to entry. There are plenty of other successful clients out there. AOL is not preventing these in any way from coming out (unlike Microsoft, for example, who used squeeze tactics on OEM's to prevent the spread of alternative OS's... among other things).
AOL should be allowed to prevent competing companies from using THEIR resources. Do I think it's in their best interest? Not really, but it's not up to me, or you, or even the FCC.
It's the RIGHT thing to do to tell them to open up and follow a standard so that all can communicate.
No, the "right" thing to do is to let the market dictate until such time as AOL breaks an anti-trust law. Nothing is preventing a better IM client (or protocol) from taking over AOL's turf. If that separate userbase gets big enough, AOL will do the common sense thing of making their client compatible, as a service to their users.
It's not like they're preventing you from talking to certain people... use a different client or send them an email, or meet on IRC, or call them on the phone, or write them a letter.
I think AOL *should* open up the spec, but I'd rather have the market dictate it than the government... at least until such time as AOL breaks an anti-trust law.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
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?
Insightful?? HUH??
AOL has a "monopoly" on the instant messaging market. In other words, they can and will stifle future development of IM products BECAUSE they dominate.
It's the RIGHT thing to do to tell them to open up and follow a standard so that all can communicate. This allows anyone, maybe even a Slashdot reader, to come up with a better widget and compete FAIRLY.
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"
Please show me proof that they have gone and stifled Microsoft's messaging client, Yahoo's messaging client, or any other.
BilldaCat
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.
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
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.
--------------------
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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?
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
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.
Why the hell should AOL pay for all those IM servers just to have other companies freeload off of them?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!