Slashdot Mirror
AOL-TW Merger: FCC May Require AIM Compatibility
nicadic writes: "The FCC may add a requirement to the AOL-Time Warner merger agreement that would force AOL to make its IM system interoperable with at least one other provider of instant messaging services. Have a look at the full story here (www.washingtonpost.com)" With that small concession, it looks like the merger is likely to go through.
I'm posting this because I don't know much about the FCC and what their position is on Instant Messaging, and I hope that someone will be able to reply to this and help me out. What are they doing, worry about instant messaging services? I though that the Federal Communications Commission dealt with the actual communication media, the means to communicate, not applications and protocols used for.... teenage chatting? What is their problem.
I agree; I want that too.
Until then, I'm using EveryBuddy. In fact, it looks like they have a new release out...
It isn't perfect; it's more like sox. It's the swiss-army knife of IM clients.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well, I'm not quite sure why the FCC thinks they'd know about this area, but I'm pretty sure they're just overseeing the merger, and not drafting the standard. It's a little creepy, but not as creepy as letting The Secret Service handle Computer Crime.
:)
I wish E-mail programs were interoperable; as it is, I see a lot of MIME headers that break elm. But usually that's just spam; only occasionally is it from real people (users of OutLook) that don't know how to send *text*...
These guys wrote RFC2778 and RFC2779; it seems to be designed from an "agent" perspective. I suppose that's the new, hot trend nowadays, but it seems a little heavyweight for just a chat client. However, they're working on it and I'm not, so I suppose I can't complain.
Does anyone know about any other RFCs related to this?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
No, winamp is a proprietary API, and they're both reinventing the wheel. All you have to do is statically link GTK, and there's no difference from the perspective of an outside user.
:)
What you'd need to do is create a GTK wrapper for Win32; then you could thunk through all the calls you need, and port all the GTK stuff to (mostly) native Windows.
In fact, I'd want wrappers for everything to a target API, personally, so I could port everything, and make it all themeable. But it'd be a lot of work...
Also, you don't need efficiency in an IM client; otherwise, people would never write them in Java and Tcl/Tk.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, unlike the misleading /. blurb, this would involve the creation of an "industry standard" that AOL-TW would have to adopt.
Sounds good to me. I mean, really, how many stupid datagram headers can you have anyhow? I implemented tftp recently, and that wasn't hard at all.
I say we do this the old-fashioned way. Draft a standard, and write an RFC. We shouldn't need more than 5-7 actual commands anyhow.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
What does this say about America today if a major merger such as this could hinge on a stupid little chat program. It isn't the only option for chatting... it is just exclusive to its self. What other stipulations could they try to set that would be better?
I don't know... maybe more people to code a better Netscape 6... force them to challenge IE. That would be an idea. Or... gnutella...
What a missed oppertunity...
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
It seems that a lack of IM interoperability is really more of pain that a real FCC/FTC issue. All this IM talk makes me run back to the safe world of irc. They talk about creating a standard for internet chat when there has been one for years.
Since all of these programs are free and only bring in revenue through advertising, I really don't see what the problem is. There are always lots of incompatibilities between programs. There always will be. AOL is not using its market dominance in the IM arena to take over another area. This is not the same as when MS told OEMs to build IE and not Netscape or lose Windows. Nor is it like when MS gave IE away for free to kill Netscape while MS made its money elsewhere.
To put it another way, what if Real format became the very popular and Real refused to license the player code to anyone else. Should the government force them to open up the Real format? It would be nice from a user standpoint but it would not be needed from a governmental standpoint.
I am much more worried about regulation of cable lines. I believe that cable will become the next standard in home internet connectivity. It has higher throughput and less of a distance limitation than DSL and home wireless internet is still some time away. Internet connectivity and the services that bring it (standard voice line, DSL, cable, wireless) really should be thought of as a neccessity that people need goverment protection for rather than a luxury that the government doesn't need to involve themselves with. In my area I am stuck between various monopolies and trusts. You want DSL? I don't care what ISP you use it will be Verizon's lines in the end. They also own nearly all the fibre in this area, with PECO (our local power company) coming in second. Ok, I'll take cable access. I must go with Adelphia cable due to where I live and that means @Home. Even if I move...the entrire tri-state is almost completely @Home. They are the provider for Comcast, Suburban, and Adelphia. To top it off, all of these cable companies have AT&T connections. Often the name on the bill is not your actual provider as your account is bumped around from provider for a fee. Each time you are bumped, your line upgrades fall to the back of the list.
It is the cable lines that need opening, not the IMs!
-- soldack
Actually, unlike the misleading /. blurb, this would involve the creation of an "industry standard" that AOL-TW would have to adopt.
Am I the only person who is uneasy with the idea of the FTC/FCC dictating the creation or adoption of Internet protocol standards? Is there some problem with the voluntary IETF standards process that warrants U.S. federal intervention? To date we've done well by letting companies adopt the IETF standards as they please, but not forcing anyone to use them.
Email programs are intrinsicly susceptible to the same network effects as IM clients, yet the natural trend with email has been toward interoperability. Why should we treat IM any differently?
Sounds good to me. I mean, really, how many stupid datagram headers can you have anyhow? I implemented tftp recently, and that wasn't hard at all.
tftp rocks.
I say we do this the old-fashioned way. Draft a standard, and write an RFC. We shouldn't need more than 5-7 actual commands anyhow.
I agree. Let's create a standard through the IETF, not the FCC. AOL can hop on board or not.
With only about 5% of the world's population online there's still plenty of room for a new vendor-agnostic IM standard.
--
So what? Let me build a tiny scenario here for you: I have buddies from all over the world using all sorts of different programs to chat on all sorts of platforms. In order for me to see who's online and whatnot, I have to have 3 or 4 applications open and build 3-4 databases to keep up with everyone.
.. but passing text messages between clients using a standardized protocol can't be *that* bloody hard.
Does this strike anyone a fucking stupid?
I want a universal IM client that can connect to ICQ, AIM, Yahoo, MSN, etc. and let me chat with whomever I want. Now, not to limit progress, I wouldn't mind if I could only use some special features with those other users using the same service as me (ICQ, etc.)
Can you imagine if phone companies were like that? You'd need a different, special phone and phone line for anyone that wasn't the same service as you. No way that would happen or would be tolerated (although I'm sure that the phone companies would love it, captive audience and all that).
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
Of all the bad things that will come out of this merger, IM incompatibility would have been the most insignificant.
Now, AOL buys said company and once again wholly owns every AIM-compatible IM client.
I don't understand a whole lot about mergers and such. So it seems odd to me that all the fuss is being made over AIM and not over ICQ. Their stats, however fudged, claim that ICQ has at least 20 million more users than AIM. Does anyone really *want* to talk to AOL users, that isn't already an AOL luser themself? That's the only benefit of using AIM over ICQ (unless of course you LIKE advertisements... but they've added those to ICQ now, too). So it seems to me that this is less about instant messaging, and more about opening up AOL's ISP lusers to the rest of the internet.
I read somewhere that Microsoft is committed to interoperability with IETF standards. Jabber's protocol is based on an IETF draft. If AOL opens AIM to MSN, this may produce a more reliable AIM/Jabber gateway.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"With that small concession, it looks like the merger is likely to go through."
I wouldn't exactly consider it a small concession. Yes, I realize that this is a HUGE merger and that it shouldn't really go through at all, or at least the concession should be larger, but this is much better then nothing.
I for one view this as very good news. Don't get me wrong, I despise IM, I used ICQ back in, what was it, 96 or 97 but stopped pretty soon after AOL bought it....... so this won't really effect me directly, but all in all this is a good thing. A small blow to the beast is better then no blow at all...
This is a classic case of the government stepping in where it has no knowledge of what it's doing. It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to force a company to give their resources freely to competitors without compensation. The only way AOL could ever open up instant messaging is if it charged third party companies a fee for using their backend. This is the way the phone companies work. Would you rather instant messaging be expensive and regulated like telephone service, or free and unregulated like it is now? I will continue to try to convince my friends to switch to MSN Messenger, as not only an open protocol but a much better designed one. But that's their choice, not the government's.
The only reason Microsoft failed against AOL was because they tried to capitalize on it. A truly decentralized effort to create compatibilty with AIM would never fail, without government intervention. AOL has a right to try to protect their protocol, just like I have a right to reverse engineer it. A blow to AOL's right would only make it easier for the government to try to take away mine.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
In Europe there are several baby AOLs (forget exactly how many), each charging different rates (so much for the Common Market), and each serving up its own local content, but with the ability to access to all the other AOLs around the globe (now there's a scary thought, eh?)
There once was a EuropeOnline, a proprietary online service launch just after Europeans discovered the Internet en masse - suffice to say, it is now a very distant memory.
In answer to your statement, yes America is the centre of the Universe, but only because most Americans have trouble with the map of the world, and have settled on a much simpler version.
-MT.
Call me crazy, but maybe the fact that the news media is getting so big that all of the news and opinions are coming from one place disturbs me a little bit more than a chat client protocol. I find it hard to understand why this small issue is such a big deal in this case. Shouldn't people be more worried about the monopoly on information distribution methods that is occuring?
-winter fantom
The FCC recommendation, about an inch-thick document that was distributed late Wednesday evening to the five commissioners, includes a clause to ensure that AOL does not discriminate in its contracts with other instant-messaging firms, sources said. After AOL strikes its first deal to connect its instant-messaging system with a rival, the online giant would be required to offer other instant-messaging firms terms that are no worse than those offered in its first contract, sources said.
The FCC recommendation gives AOL and Time Warner another option on instant-messaging: to adopt an industry standard to make their system interoperable with others, sources said.
So, If the reccomendations are accepted, AOL-TW must extend offers that are no worse than the initial one to other IM providers, or adopt an industry standard IM protocol.
-nicadic
Has anyone ever tried to use AIM while logged in to AOL? AOL takes all the messages, even though it has an inferior Buddy List and messaging window. I prefer to use AIM, as it contains many features that AOL doesn't contain, such as Talk, Image transmission, and File Sending. In addition, I don't have to have the junk-filled AOL window occupying my entire screen to send messages.
The only successful way for me to use AIM on my computer while logged in to AOL is to use AOL version 5.0, and an older version of AIM, with my AOL Privacy Preferences set to block all messages. This is absolutely ridiculous! I also think that it is ridiculous that AIM has ads for AOL, even when you are logged in as a paying AOL customer - why try to market your customer for something that he or she already has?
While using AOL 6, and the latest version of AIM - the only one AOL 6 allows to run - the only way to use AIM is to log in to AIM under another screen name - that's my only alternative.
So before we begin to worry about AOL opening its messaging networks to other companies and networks, I think that AOL needs to bring unity to their own software.
THIS JUST IN: AOL announces compatability with ICQ. =)
end communication
Absolutely nothing stopped any other company from making their servers accessible to AIM. The only "interoperability" problem was other chat providers demanding to be able to use the AOL IM servers and userbase without giving even ad revenue back to AOL. They wanted a larger network of users than AIM had that would be mostly paid for by AOL; a double win for the non-AOL side and a double loss for AOL.
So, now MS and Yahoo are going to be rewarded for their attempts to hijack AOL servers with an FCC mandate for AOL to open up its userbase, giving them far greater benefits than AOL will recieve by having access to either the MS or Yahoo chat userbases. Aren't Yahoo and Microsoft big enough to stand on their own two feet?
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
(This post is ©2001 Microsoft(TM) Corporation.)