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.

10 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Monopoly != illegal monopoly by Dirtside · · Score: 4
    Keep in mind that even though AOL *MAY HAVE* a monopoly, it does not mean that it is an *illegal monopoly*. It is not illegal in the U.S. to simple have a monopoly on a market; it's the using of certain practices to gain a monopoly, or to abuse a monopoly position, that are illegal.

    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
  2. So Easy to Use, No Wonder They've Got a Monopoly by zpengo · · Score: 4
    You know, the whole IM wars thing is getting pretty silly. I stopped IMing (w/ ICQ, the breakfast of champions) a few months ago, and haven't really missed it. Sure, it's more convenient for some people, but dammit is e-mail *really* so hard that you can't just shoot of a message?

    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?
  3. Re:So Easy to Use, No Wonder They've Got a Monopol by OnceWas · · Score: 4

    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.
  4. I've said it before, cops *love* IM - easy to tap! by isaac · · Score: 4
    Opening AOL's IM servers to all clients and comers will ensure that all competitors (duh) use the AIM protocol over AOL's servers.

    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.
  5. None of the FCC's business by isdnip · · Score: 5

    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.

  6. It's not quite the same... by adam · · Score: 5
    The difference is that the government is _not_ forcing AOL to open up the protocol by fiat -- they're considering making it a condition of the merger with Time-Warner.

    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.
  7. IM dominance by Hard_Code · · Score: 4

    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?
  8. Re:Buisness critical? by Erbo · · Score: 4
    ...it seems that several folks have taken to using [AIM] 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.
    Might I (modestly) suggest Jabber? Its decentralized nature and open XML-based protocols make it a great choice for companies implementing "internal" IM communications...you can run your own Jabber server, just the way you run your own email server. There are several excellent Jabber clients available now for different operating systems, and, if your employees absolutely have to talk to people on AIM (or ICQ, or other systems), there are server-based "transports" to bridge the gap.

    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!
  9. Buisness critical? by photozz · · Score: 5

    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
  10. Common sense here? by Operandi · · Score: 5

    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.