Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves AOL-Time Warner Merger
Lots of people submitted this - we held off until we could find the FCC's information page. CNN and nearly every other news outlet on the planet have stories, but for the real info, you'll need to go straight to the FCC and read their documents. While you're pondering the meaning of this, consider: it used to be the policy of the U.S. government to keep content producers and carriers separate.
Ironically, the thing that had the FCC the most worried was AOL acquiring the head ends of half the country's cable modems, when cable-based broadband figures to be a bit player in that industry (vs. 3G wireless and various DSLs) within the next few years.
People have been saying that telcos would beat cable for over 5 years now. It still hasn't happened. Heck, it hasn't even started. Telcos may never get their act together, and if they do it will not be anytime soon.
3G wireless doesn't exist in the US yet. DSL could be a contender, but it's still too confusing and fragmented for Joe Public (aka, AOL Arnie) to figure out. What does DSL mean to AOL Arnie? Where does it come from? It's just another TLA that he doesn't care about.
Now a Cable Modem he understands (or so he thinks). It's a modem that uses your cable TV line. Of course, it's not really a modem at all because it is a digital connection, but Arnie doesn't care because in his mind it "does what a modem does" and so it's familiar territory. Nobody has to install any special lines to his house. He doesn't have to do the math to find out if he lives close enough to the telco's switch. It's simple. Besides, when someone tries to tell him what DSL is they always start off with "It's like a cable modem, but..." so cable modems must be better.
It's going to be a long time before people start ditching cable modems in droves for DSL or 3G wireless. The costs have to come down, the service has to become more reliable, and the whole process needs to become more dummy friendly.
No kidding, why wouldn't they be pleased. I have only one question though. Why did the FCC vote in favour of this merger? I don't understand what they had to gain from it, I mean the general public has more to win with Time Warner reporting non-bias news.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
If it is disturbing, then it should be disturbing on it's own merits and not in conjunction with what little AOL brings to the table.
What really disturbs me most is that the same company that owns the most popular ISP in the world also owns Progressive Farmer magazine.
"we held off until we could find the FCC's information page." Hmmm, FCC.gov. Click the top link "FCC Gives Conditoned Approval to AOL - Time Warner Merger. 1/11/01" Hope they didn't have to hold off *too* long. :>
READ IT AGAIN, from YOUR POST, trimmed to focus on the details:
Given AOL Time Warner's likely domination of the potentially competitive business of new, IM-based services, especially advanced, IM-based high-speed services ("AIHS") applications, the FCC ruled that AOL Time Warner may not offer any AIHS steaming video applications that uses a Names and Presence Directory ("NPD") over the Internet via AOL Time Warner broadband facilities until the company demonstrates that it has satisfied one of three pro-competitive options outlined by the FCC
As it has been reported EVERYWHERE now, they do not have to be IM compatible UNLESS they use AIHS, or in other words, next-generation services. ALL of those conditions come into play when and ONLY IF they use AIHS.
Period.
As I said, read it again and again.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
So who'd you vote for peasant?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ok, help me to understand this phenomena. We geeks want everything on the web. We want to see the web used for TV, News, Gaming, etc., at least I do. Slashdot is a mecca of information which is what the internet was designed for. TV and movies on demand is what we crave, right? When something happens to actually smack this horse in the ass and get it moving, most of you complain..."...oh, kiddies say they want teevee on the wwweb.". I despise AOL, but hey, MANY people love it. I have Warner cable. You see, sometimes in business companies merge and innovate. Sometimes BIG companies merge. Sometimes small companies merge. Lots of you /.'ers attack every new idea or business phenomena. Why is that? Are you jealous because you aren't profiting from these ventures? I don't see what the big deal is...you don't use AOL so why worry about it?
I hate to disagree, but..
I went and interviewed for a position with the software development group for AOL back in september, at which time they were already planning on the merger..
Anyways, while I was interviewing, they paid particular attention to my linux knowledge, and specifically said that 'certain products were being developed for that platform'.
She non-specifically made it clear that AOL intends to be *EVERYWHERE*, and that linux makes a nice way to do that.
Dont be so sure it wont happen. Remember, AOL generally hasnt switched to netscape code for their browser to keep their logo on windows machines, which is becoming less important.
They can still get away with making NON-windows versions that use the netscape code, ya know?
They also can do the same for compuserve, and all the companies that they license their technology to (prodigy).
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
This is what happens when you get a society addicted to the term "you've got mail" look for a new slogan like "you've got cable" I think that if AOL wants to spend 121 billion on something they should give it back to the customers that made them as they are. Another prime example of what makes the USA so great.....monopoly anyone....
The greatest crime that has ever been commited is the atrosities the goverments of this world commit against the people
No... you got your internet provider in my content company!
I wonder if Microsoft will acquire them or vice versa...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Shouldn't that be "so who'd vote for you peasant?" :)
Um, why would any country want to waste perfectly intelligent people in their armed forces?
Well actually, countries do. Which is why I left mine and came to America - those bastards back home wanted to draft me. Fat chance. But here in the U.S., they've figured out they're better off putting the folks with brains in say, Silicon Valley than Fort Mead.
So my advice is, stay out of the way of those American forces. They're nice, patriotic boys one and all, but they're not selected for their smarts.
It's not, yet. But some day it may be, if only for brand name recognition value. And IIRC, something like 80+% of people use AOL instant messenger programs (through either AOL own IM or ICQ).
Or probably "The Company" for short.
Of course, if you went the Truth in Advertising route, it would be called "Big Brother."
It would stand to reason that the management training manual would likely consist of a nightmarish compilation of 1984, Catch-22, Brave New World, Ferenheit 451, and a host of other works with which I am not familiar.
Though I'm not familiar with the book, I understand Dante's Inferno could also fit in as well.
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Not really. But it might be nice to see it go to a better home in that case.
-- Welcome to the new dawn.
The ruling can be found at this link: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/20 01/fcc01011_fact.txt
IM Condition
The FCC imposed the IM condition to avert market harm now so that it would not be required to regulate in the future.
? Given AOL Time Warner's likely domination of the potentially competitive business of new, IM-based services, especially advanced, IM-based high-speed services ("AIHS") applications, the FCC ruled that AOL Time Warner may not offer any AIHS steaming video applications that uses a Names and Presence Directory ("NPD") over the Internet via AOL Time Warner broadband facilities until the company demonstrates that it has satisfied one of three pro-competitive options outlined by the FCC.
? AOL Time Warner must file a progress report with the FCC, 180 days from the release date of the order and every 180 days thereafter, describing in technical depth the actions it has taken to achieve interoperability of its IM offerings and other offerings. These reports will be placed on public notice for comment.
? The IM condition will sunset five years after the release of the Order.
"This may be the fault of the interpreter, in which case HE is the hippopotamus."
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Corporations have a lifespan and set goals far longer than 5 years in the future. This government scrutiny, if it happens at all, won't happen for very long. AOL/Time Warner can wait. They are in it for the long haul. Guaranteed that within the next 10 years at the latest, they will have violated every single agreement they made with the government. They only played nice to get over the pesky matter of public opinion. Now that they got what they wanted, it's a long, slow, inexorable slide down the slippery slope of lack-of-choice.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Does it really surprise anyone that this went through? A deal like this is potentially way too profitable for any government agency to stand in the way (and by that I mean the profits that are poured directly into that agency's member's pockets). Not to mention the concept that with fewer media "outlets" it will be a lot easier to coordinate when there is a situation where the government wants to make sure that there is no media leakage (and if there would be just say, nudge, nudge, remember when we let you do this).
But the real story here is that the government lately is promoting bigger and bigger business entities. The reasoning probably goes along the lines of bigger business=bigger government. The bigger the businesses get, the more justified the government can feel when they say they need to create new laws and make themselves bigger. Bigger government means more power. God it's great to be an American! Next thing you know I'll be blocked from buying a guitar because I might "disrupt the flow of information" from the big media conglomerates.
------------
*You may experience busy signals or blocked sites, especially during peak times or if you attempt to access content we don't like.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
I think this is going to be a lot more annoying over anything else. We are going to start seeing Batman checking his AOL account just like we see the JAG team getting MSN messenger messages for top secret data. In the matrix 2 we will see, instead of them having to get to a phone, them having to get to a computer with AOL IM...
I heard about this on the news this morning and I couldn't believe how stupid the requirements (that I heard) were:
1) AOL has to make Instant Messaging work with other versions.
Hey, can you also make sure they keep putting orange lightning rods on the free CD cases? It's about as meaningful as Instant Messaging.
2) TimeWarner's content has to be available to other ISPs.
Leaving aside the question of whether TimeWarner actually produces any "content" worthy of the name, why WOULDN'T they make it widely available. It's widely available now, restricting it to just AOL users just reduces the market share.
I guess my whole argument boils down to this: As people get more technically savvy, AOL's membership is going to decrease, making this all meaningless.
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
If anything is bad about this merger is that it now gives MS a good dose of ammunitions to defend its position that it has competition and thus it can now argue that breaking MS up is a sure prescription to kill it off.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
AOL - Internet for Idiots
Time Warner - Service Sucks
Can the combination be that much better?
I understand that part of the deal is they have to open AIM.
Finally, we'll get some standardization going on and I'll be able to talk to people regardless of client.
Of course, everything else about this deal seems to suck...
It's a move back to pre-renaissance feudal days, but on a global scale. We can only hope that there'll be a similar cultural revolution to the renaissance in the near future.
What scares me is that the same thing happened as recently as the late 1800s - early 1900s. Have we not learned anything from history? When I look at the corporate power during the 20s, with the monopolies, company towns, and "robber barons", I can easily envision our current corporations doing the same thing. Perhaps in a little different manner, though: the government would probably be actively involved rather than taking the hands-off attitude of the 20s.
The Great Depression was the main event that broke the feudal pattern of the era. The unchecked power of the corporations eventually resulted in a crisis that caused general harm to society. Unfortunately, unless the majority of the populace suffers as a result of the feudalism, it's rare to see the public outcry that's needed to bring about change. As long as most people are doing okay, and have opportunities for advancement, they stick with the status quo. It's only when the bottom falls out completely that there's a strong motivation for change.
I don't know what scares me more about our current situation: that we may have to face something as devastating as the Great Depression before we'll see significant structural change, or that the policies and programs that are currently in place might be just enough to stave off such devastation and preserve the feudal status quo.
The demise of the rampant scarcity economy via nuclear fusion and nanotechnology or some other technological brreakthrough would jump start such a revolution nicely.
Hmmm...that might be true, but only if the general public truly understands the change. But like you said, we're seeing true scarcity replaced by artificial scarcity. As long as those who value a scarcity-based economy are able to generate this artificial scarcity and convince the public that it's just as real as the physical scarcity, then it won't matter. An artificial scarcity that's generally accepted will work just as well as a true scarcity.
Artificial scarcity is already a reality. And there are so many ways to create it:
And the scary thing is that all you have to do to create an artificial scarcity on a resources is to tie it economically, contractually or technologically to something that is already scarce. It doesn't really matter whether the existing scarcity is real or artificial, either. The tying will propagate the scarcity equally well.
Okay, call me a cynic, but I can't see this cycle of artificial scarcity being easily broken by the development of any technology, no matter how wonderful it may be.
If you want a list of holdings, Columbia Journalism Review has them for both AOL and Time Warner. Wow. While AOL's list isn't so long, Time Warner's is very disturbing.
At some point in the near future, will AOL start including Netscape 6.x with their installation CD? When likely? It seems the only company big enough to go against MS and reverse the trend of IE getting such a huge browser share is AOL (by distributing Netscape) Anyone agree or disagree? As an occasional HTML'er, I too have to go through the frustration of checking my pages in NS4.7, then IE5, and now NS6.0. Hopefully the rise of an AOL-pushed Netscape browser will reduce the recent trend for pages to use IE-centric tricks (because of IE's current large market share) Finally, most of us complained about the sluggishness of the XUL-skinned Mozilla/Netscape (instead of using native GUI widgets), but as CPU's get faster, and "web appliances" which don't rely on a Win/Mac/Gnome/KDE GUI become more available, perhaps this "non-native widget set" idea for Netscape was a good idea after all?
They went after the first big boys on the block - the Carnegies, Rockefellers, etc., but they never went after Hearst even though he owned a newspaper in every city. He also owned all the production means, start to finish, to build a newspaper, and consistently used his papers to influence public opinion and put pressure on political figures. Hearst almost kept us out of WWII by defending and supporting the Nazis in his papers.
The FTC went after AT&T, but hasn't done anything as the Baby Bells have come back together to form (ugh!) Verizon. They haven't blinked when banks take over cities, and airlines consolidate. And they haven't offered more than trifling criticism on mass media deals. Why not?
If the merger were to be blocked, how do you think the FTC and FCC would look on CNN? Most people aren't smart enough to see the connection, and slowly but surely, the media would drop them down a notch. Who knows, CNN might be able to generate enough support to overturn Sherman Antitrust completely! And then where would we be? I mean, the media killed the Independent Counsel Act after the Clinton impeachment. I've seen five CNN correspondents tag-team a gov't PR official until he almost cracked ("Are there any questions from a non-CNN reporter?" was his exact quote). The power of the media in this country has reached the point of ridicule.
I think we should ask ourselves a question. If the founding fathers had known the speed and widespread audience that media could generate given the technology, would they have so vigorously defended the rights of the media? Or would there have been a responsiblity issue? I think that with technological advancement comes a responsibility not to abuse it, and the mass media has overstepped its bounds. I'm the last person in the world who wants to revisit the First Amendment (I think it's the most important part of our body of law), but there must be some mechanism to stop the glaring abuses going on. Any ideas?
It also should be pointed out that Time Warner already had content and bandwidth. -Mark
Another huge corporation that wants to control our lives and determine what we do and when we do it..
:)
Or am i just a bit pessimistic?
I'm sorry, I forgot to hit the "plain old text" selection.. (how do I go back to change it?) what I meant to say was:
At some point in the near future, will AOL start including Netscape 6.x with their installation CD? When likely?
It seems the only company big enough to go against MS and reverse the trend of IE getting such a huge browser share is AOL (by distributing Netscape) Anyone agree or disagree?
As an occasional HTML'er, I too have to go through the frustration of checking my pages in NS4.7, then IE5, and now NS6.0. Hopefully the rise of an AOL-pushed Netscape browser will reduce the recent trend for pages to use IE-centric tricks (because of IE's current large market share)
Finally, most of us complained about the sluggishness of the XUL-skinned Mozilla/Netscape (instead of using native GUI widgets), but as CPU's get faster, and "web appliances" which don't rely on a Win/Mac/Gnome/KDE GUI become more available, perhaps this "non-native widget set" idea for Netscape was a good idea after all?
...America OnTime. :-)
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
(This post is ©2001 Microsoft(TM) Corporation.)
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
"And when the majority..."
oh. you mean it hasnt already fallen into the first category???
Did you just grab my ass?
why wouldn't it? if it was legal, aoltw would definately want to restrict access, both to their content(aol only) and others content(not from aol). this would clearly be in their best interests.
It's nice to know we can count on honest reporting- from *one* of our news providers. Eenie meenie miney moe...
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
BTW, it'll be interesting to see the finicial report of electric utilities in California. I imagine that despite the lack of power generating facilities, their "high fuel cost" for producing power, and blackouts (rolling and otherwise), they will still manage to pull in a pretty decent profit. Oh yes, they'll eventually increase their power generation capabilities. However, the foundation will be poured upon our bruised and broken back, as well as the reminants of our bank accounts.
Last time I checked, the two major electric utilities were about 4 billion dollars in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. So much for "profit".
These companies got screwed by the government who allowed their costs to rise without giving them the ability to increase revenue. But I guess that is better than allowing them to pass the expense on to the customer, who has to eat the bill because he/she can't pass it along to anyone else. But it looks like the customer will pay in the end, either by not having power or higher tax rates as the government bails out the utilities to keep the lights on.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
"AOL will be allowed to continue blocking users of competing instant-messaging services from communicating with users of its market-leading instant-messaging services known as AIM and ICQ.
"Only if AOL extends its instant-messaging services to include multimedia features like videoconferencing would the company be required to allow communications between its users and users of competing services."
And since most people have no use for video-conferencing, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
While some people point out the provisions within the merger allowance requiring access for "non-premium" service (who decides what is "premium" and what is not?) the simple fact is that we now have content and provider being the same entity, a vertical monopoly. This is bad from any standpoint. Those who say "well, it isn't that bad, they'll be watched closely for five years" are ignoring the fact that this merger will still exist after five years have passed. Some corporations and managers know the value of patience; they can wait five years before they get nasty.
One of the functions of government in a capitalistic society must be to preserve competition, a function that our government cannot fulfill if it is owned by the big corporations. The AOL/TW merger is just a symptom of the larger problem of campaign financing. We must acknowledge that a "campaign contribution" is nothing more or less than a bribe. Our "elected representitives" appoint the FTC and the FCC, is it any surprise that they have appointed people who have weakened our watchdog orginizations when they owe their very elections to the corporations the FTC is supposed to be watching? The system of legalized bribery in politics must end or we will be seeing more and more mergers of this sort.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Like the FCC has opposed any merger. I'll bet the fund managers for the FCC secretly snap up stock every time one of these mergers gets proposed, and just before each merger is approved.
No matter how you spell it, it's still "M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y".
I was channel-surfing tonight and I heard the quote that is now my slashdot signature. See below. This is worrisome.
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
Note that they write about 'consumers'... not citizens, not people, they see us as little bags of money for them to periodically drain -- .NET and such are proposals to help it occur in a more continuous fashion.
Damn it, can't at least *one* journalist resign in disgust over the control exerted by the myriad interests of the corporate hydra? ("No, you can't run this story about AOL/TW beating up third world baby seals...")
Grendel Drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
ABC went under such vertical integration with Disney years ago. Now they they don't produce anything worth watching.
But isn't the purpose of the Doomsday machine lost if you keep it a secret!
umm instant messaging is the reason probably one third of the people online are online. you don't think thats why people get aol?
In a related story, CNN reports that AOL is ready to unveil it's latest improvement to IM, the "WAAASSSUUUUPPPP key."
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.
AOL for Linux?? Somehow, when I consider the computer skills of the average aol user, and the skills of the average linux user, I find that aol meets very different needs- "content" that you can find elsewhere vs the bandwidth that so many linux users crave. In other words: AOL /usr is the oxymoron of the day.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/20 01/fcc01011.txt: D. Technical Performance: All contracts between AOL Time Warner and unaffiliated ISPs for access to Time Warner's cable systems shall contain a clause warranting that, to the extent AOL Time
Warner provides any Quality of Service mechanisms, caching services, technical support customer services, multicasting capabilities, address management and other technical functions of the cable system that affect customers' experience with their ISP, AOL Time Warner must provide them in a manner that does not discriminate in favor of AOL Time Warner's affiliated ISPs on the basis of affiliation.
Just to the right of Frederick the Great.
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.
I mean really, do you think they wouldn't screen out any potential juror who can set their VCR clock?
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
It's always struck me as difficult that even interoperable im programs require an account on each service. For me, the ideal im would be just like email- you could im someone's email address regardless of whether they had the same isp as you, and from there it would work like im. Is there any kind of a project to do this in the works? If so it might make the issue of dominance a moot point- there would be a simple standard that didn't require accounts on 100 or so different services and yet people could easily communicate across services, aol notwithstanding.
Here's the multi-billion dollar qustion for everyone: Do they (they being AOL-Time Warner) have to allow their internet customers to be able to access a competitor's content? I'm still surfing through the FCC text, but don't haven't seen any such detail.
As we all know to painfully well, the devil is in the details.
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
I'm a Netscape Employee.
:( I mean really, are they even funny anymore?
Here's my thoughs about the merger:
Good news: I'm on the same payroll as Bugs Bunny and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that one hot chick from buffy the vampire slayer.
Bad news: I'm on the same payroll as the Wayans Brothers.
Good news: I'm on the same payroll as the cast of OZ.
Bad news: I'm on the same payroll as the cast of Dawson's creek (except for the chicks, who'd I'd boink in an instant).
Good News: I work for the largest Multi-Media empire in the world.
Bad news: I still get shit about it because Netscape is owned by AOL.
Oh well.
My $0.02
The name TWAT (Time Warner AOL Turner) has been discussed on alt.aol-sucks.
-- Pinocchio Poppins (former a.a-s regular)The guy who won the election, not the guy who's being appointed president.
- "When I say dance, you'd best DANCE motherf*cker!" -Violent Femmes
I think it's a bit ironic how you're complaining about biased news while reading Slashdot.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
A quick search reveals TW/AOL will own:
AOL
Compuserv
ICQ, Inc
MapQuest
Netscape
time magazine
sports illustrated
people magazine
Entertainment Weekly
HBO
Life Magazine
Six Flags Theme Parks * 14
CNN
Castle Rock Entertainment
TNT
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies
Warner Brothers
Warner Music
Atlantic Records
Elektra Records
Reprise Records
Does anyone know of others?
...now all that they have to do is merge with Microsoft and Adobe.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Hm... it looks like they are required to only sign agreements with three other IM providers (like Jabber, maybe Microsoft) ensuring interoperability with their products. So they don't need to open up AIM and ICQ protocols to allow development of free alternative clients for various platforms. In fact, I'm not sure that opening the AIM and ICQ protocols would fulfill the commission's conditions. They have to sign agreements with other business entities to comply, releasing it all as RFCs wouldn't be enough.
This is sad news, because what the FCC has in fact said with this decision is that it doesn't recognize messaging platforms that are not owned by a business entity with which one can sign a contract. In other words FCC has said that it is OK if a messaging system is wholly proprietary and free software or free platforms are not a remedy to a monopoly problem.
You load 16 tons .... what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go,
I owe my soul to the company store.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If this means we get to replace that annoying women off the AOL TV ads with Bugs Bunny, I'm all for it.
And on a side note, I think this ties in great with the article posted just before it, Death Spiral First Evidence Of Black Hole. Heh.
--
and the (majority) republicans aren't even in office yet!
Folks,
While you folks are celebrating the supposed breakup of Microsoft (which may now never happen given Judge Jackson's recent public comments and the incoming Bush administration), that case has been rendered moot by the now-certain merger of AOL and Time Warner.
Think about it: AOL Time Warner is now the world's most powerful mass media entity, something right out of the James Bond movie TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Look at what they will own now:
1. The #1 ISP in the USA.
2. The #2 internet broadband provider in the USA.
3. The #2 cable system provider in the USA.
4. The most powerful cable/satellite TV content provider in the world with CNN networks, HBO networks, Turner Broadcasting networks (TBS, TNT, and TCM), and TVKO pay-per-view.
5. Their own TV network (WB Network).
6. A massive movie and TV production combine (Warner Brothers, New Line and Gramercy).
7. One of the largest magazine publishers in the world.
8. One of the largest music publishers in the world.
9. One of the largest comics publishers in the world.
This has the potential for First Amendment abuses that border on frightening. It may give new meaning to the phrases "bias media" and "conflict of interest."
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
. . .it used to be the policy of the U.S. government to keep content producers and carriers separate.
Don't you think that Time Warner has gone around this for years before AOL even entered the situation. I checked CNN through my Time Warner Cable connection and they said this would be great for consumers. That must be the way it is.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Yes indeed,
AOL has managed to collect 25 million of the stupidest computer users in the world to fill with whatever propoganda and false information it chooses to. And Time Warner already enjoys enormous power with its products. Did you see Time Magazine's web site a few months ago where they invited people to choose the biggest fraud of the century. There were 100 people to choose from. They had Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and one or two similar names. There was nobody like Monica, Clinton, his aides, lawyers, or anyone else on Clinton's side of the purjery case. Once the voting was finished, Time reported the results as who America thought were the biggest frauds of the century. Other polls were similar. I would add Time Warner to the list of the biggest frauds. Merging 25 million stupid people with a powerful, biased media organization is not a good idea.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Here is Dow Jones' page on their Utility Index with convenient links to 11 members of the Index. Please look at Duke Energy, PG&E and Enron - the three largest investor-owned utilties in the US. Of them, only PG & E is in trouble. They've taken it upon themselves - now "gifted" with dergulation - to let California hang out to dry. Every other power company I looked up seemed to be in ship-shape, making money hand over fist.
Here, is Dow Jones' page on the California Energy Crisis. There are links to news articles for you. The article from Reason Online - though slathered in Republican anti-liberal rhetoric - does give the salient points:
The investor-owned utilites made stupid investments in inefficient plants
The politicians in California haven't really deregulated - they created a very controlled, artificial market.
This "dergulation" - as the Reason article also points out - was passed unanimously by the state legilature in 1996. For reference here is the political makeup of the 1996 California State Legislature - Look for the heading "1996 State Legislature Results" about 4/5 of the way down the page.
For a less politically (Two Party) bent view on the general concerns facing California and other "dergulated" (or soon-to-be) states check out this, this, and this article.
One more energy-related article here.
To add my own $0.02.... Please don't take any of these articles as The Word on this or any issue. That would be dumb. Read! Read! Read!
Also, had either of these points not happened, it's at least possible that California would not be in the mess they are in. Given both points, this outcome should have been predicted.
Finally, unlike the goof-ball who penned the Reason article, please don't subscribe to the Two Party system of blaming a philosphy for the actions of our present Republicratic regime. Contrary to their notions, there is not only room for, but need for both Liberal as well as Conservative thinking in our govenmental bodies.
it's not funny.
--
+&x
I've been keeping a webpage of links to various articles about AOL, their tactics, and the merger. Not sure how useful it might be to you folks, but here it is: http://come.to/boycottaol Please feel free to e-mail me (remove the spam filter) with any comments
Here's one vote for the removal of the tags in the slashdot comments.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''um, done. didnt you see the comdex best in show consumer electronics gateway aol linux device? (seriously)
--Asa
It looks like the power distribution business is going under, while power generation continues to thrive. It is the distributors which are facing bankruptcy. I find it interesting that the city of L.A. is having no problems, because its power is delivered and generated by a municipal utility, which sells excess power to Southern California Edison. I wonder what rate that power is sold at?
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
We do not require the AOL Time Warner software to read and interpret all the data it receives or to make that data comprehensible to its users.
That is specifically talking about IM software, which means they won't have to let MSN's IMs get to AIM users. Sure, they can develop a standard protocol, but they don't have to let YOUR data get it's users.
I live life on the edge
heh.
===sam=== free nessus vulnerability scan = www.vulnerabilities.org
The trouble with that is that I can't think of many corporations that are completely ethical. Want to heat your house? You have to deal with oil companies at some point. Want food? Unless you become a hunter-gatherer, you have to deal with companies that routinely rip off third-world farmers. Want to clothe yourself? Well you'll need a good job, as everything less expensive than Armani is made in third-world sweatshops, often by children. The list goes on. The consumer has little power to change this because everyone is doing it. The only organisation with enough power to take on the corps is the government, but the government just seems to be the enforcement arm of the corps these days.
There's a very important difference between the current situation and the one to which you are alluding: If you don't like their policies, or their product, DON'T BUY IT! The dogs don't have to eat the dogfood. Yeah, you might have to give up some of the luxuries that you currently take for granted. Tough shit. It's not like you have a right to music, or a computer, or games, or net access, or any other goddam thing that you can't produce yourself.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
considering that the republican governor most likely to be announced the new commerce secretary (can't remember his name) made a statement that he didn't believe the government should not have been regulating this merger at all, i'd say your claims of a 5-year government microscope are baseless. i think what some people are concerned about is that aol will only let users go to sites they control the content of, including possibly redirecting, unknown to the user. that would surprise me, but if it wouldn't hurt their user base they would probably do it. what i thought was interesting is the one of the commissioners of the fcc who voted for this merger is colin powell's son. colin powell owns about $1 million of stock in aol. if they guy would have just not voted, the merger would have gone through anyway, but he did, and that is disappointing to me, because it looks like corruption, even if it isn't.
I'm not really in the mood to write a proper rant about this, but I'll just say briefly: By turning the dispute about MS's business practices into a holy-war, the anti-MS zealots have destroyed their followers' senses of perspective. If our problem is that we have too little choice in the products that we use, how would removing our freedom to choose completely help? Answer: It wouldn't. But it would make life a lot easier for the rich and powerful, by freeing them from the need to please their "customers".
MSK
should have previewed. i mean he didn't believe the government should be regulating the merger.
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
You also must remember: that government microscope was made by the lowest bidder. :)
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
>action to prevent this further
If by "prevent this further" you mean "prevent more mergers", then I would do all sorts of dirty trick if I were AOL!
The odd thing is that they'll be able to justify these tricks by saying, "We're just trying to make it easier for people." And they are right, it will be easier for people to choose their source of content. They won't even have to choose, as a matter of fact.
Thankfully, I believe very few AOL members would switch to Linux -- at least not permanently.
What I really cannot comprehend is why you seem to think that more clueless Linux newbie/wannabees flooding usenet, mailing lists, and IRC is a good thing.
cansecofan22: Just a thought passing through my head
It's passing is the good thing :-)
BTW, there shall be "AOL for Linux" -- it is inevitable. As a matter of fact, Slashdot recently had an article on that very thing. See "AOL For Linux Leaks Out"
--
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared
Hi folks... from the story:
I'd like to point out that it also used to be the policy of the U.S. government to keep trading and deposit institutions separate. In other words, a company couldn't be a bank and a stockbroker at the same time. If you look closely, you may see that the government is allowing this to slide as well.
It is really no use trying to understand the policy of the government or why certain things are done. You have to remember that the government is run by people. Some of them care for the better good of the nation and work hard towards that goal. Most of them (who are in any position of power) work hard to get their own way. (As in, if I were king, this is how the world would be. Now these are the steps I have to take to become king.) Always remember the golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." And that means, quite simply, that large corporations can make the rules by paying off the right people in high places. (This is how, for example, legislation gets passed that is custom-tailored to MPAA specifications.)
As you can probably tell, I am against this merger. Sure, the companies can advertise how convenient their services will be, but there is an advantage and disadvantage to everything. They (companies, government, etc) gain control by advertising the advantages and forgetting the disadvantages until it is convenient for them to remember them.
I already don't support AOL or TimeWarner and they won't get any support from me in the future.
it used to be the policy of the U.S. government to keep content producers and carriers separate.
The operative words here are used to be. Think about it: The mouse (content producer) has owned ABC (carrier) for what, going on six years now? Viacom (CBS and MTV's current parent) has been both (syndicated programming content production AND cable networks) for a couple decades. Murdoch's News Corp./Fox is all over the map as well, from movie studios to TV broadcasting. Ironically, the thing that had the FCC the most worried was AOL acquiring the head ends of half the country's cable modems, when cable-based broadband figures to be a bit player in that industry (vs. 3G wireless and various DSLs) within the next few years.
Now, the thing that has me more worried is the thought of AOL taking a lot of Time Warner's current web content (Money.com, Fortune.com, CNN.com as three examples) and improving their revenue basis by making them subscriber-only services: you'd have to be an AOL member (at $9.95/mo. of course) to access the content. Don't think it couldn't happen; Yahoo's stock drop yesterday is indicative of the sorry state of the advertiser-supported web today.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
it's a news source with a different point of view. what if you could only go to websites owned by aoltw?
the clueless will get clueless-er and the smart get smarter.
And when the majority of the population falls into the first category, they rise up and kill the second group for spoiling their fun.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Not to flame, but this isn't HIGHLY unlikely, but COMPLETELY unlikely. I think everyone would agree with me that Linux is not ready for mainstream commercial use (yet). Windows is so ingrained in the general public's mind as the "only" operating system, and AOL's monsterous marketing campaign contain an inherent committment to Microsoft and it's operating system. And, who do you know that uses Office for Windows and has actually paid for it?
You know, the idea of Instant Messenging service becoming a major sticking point between the merger of two multi-billion dollar corporations strikes me as somewhat silly. But while reading the constraints that AOL is bound to by the FCCs decision, I'm struck by an interesting thought.
In order to neutralize the effectiveness of AOLs IM in competetive situations, the FCC is trying to force AOL to create and adhere to a standard, so that any company can create an IM client, and interact with AOL's.
Using an established standard, to open up a company's monopoly on services.
What if the Justice Department had saddled Microsoft with similar constraints? Standardize the document and spreadsheet formats, so that any word processor or spreadsheet application can read, edit and save documents. For people in the business world, this is easily the biggest hurdle to switching to Linux. (yes, yes, yes, I know, "Linux will do it, freedom from the yoke of MS control! without their help!" spare me. it's not perfect, and it needs to be)
If people had the freedom to choose which program they used to read their documents, then Microsoft would have to work a lot harder to build better software. Attarct users based on the qualities of the software, not based on what format your files are in. We'd see more word processors crop up, more spreadsheet applications, because suddenly there would be this gigantic installed base of users, itching to try out something little/yellow/different/better.
So. That whole idea is not really fully developed, but I've got to run. You want to finish it off for me and solidify it bit, feel free.
J.J.
So much a monopoly, no wonder we're number one!
That statement indicates a profound but very common misunderstanding of capitalism.
Competition between companies is good for the consumer if and only if that competition takes the form of attempting to succeed by producing a better product. But corporate competition often becomes a matter of trying to destroy each other, and then the customer is usually the loser.
For example: Creative Labs sues Aureal; Aureal wins but is depleted by the effort; Creative buys Aureal. Consumers lose a choice, and and access to a superior product.
Likewise, cooperation is can be a good thing: when companies coordiate efforts, they can cut costs, increase efficiency, and learn useful techniques from each other. The end result is a better product, usually at a lower cost to the customer. Even if the end-user cost is not reduced, efficiency is increased and waste is reduced, which is better for the system as a whole in the long run.
Now I completely agree with your implication that AOL is a company that favors destructive competition and collusion, rather than constructive cooperation. I'm not at all pleased by this merger. But I couldn't just let your blanket statement lie without comment.
If you really are interested in how this aspect of capitalism works, read some of Dr. Deming -- he's the guy who essentially invented quality as a process, and taught it to the Japanese (because American corporations didn't want to hear about it), which allowed them to kick our ass in the auto industry in the 80's. He understands what makes a business effective. And he's remarkably enlightened: he understands that spending money on your employees is good for your bottom line, and that cutting corners to save a bit of cash is bad, etc. Most of his ideas (other than statsitical process control, which is a hairy mathematical method) seem like common sense to me, but they are anything but common in American business.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
As long as I can still get porn.
if they control the broadband networks, and the big content sites, they won't need a law. not that that would stop them from trying. if they bought amazon, they'd be in really good shape.
I do agree that it's always about control. But it's not just about corporations buying power in the government. I think that if you concentrate on them too much you miss the real power in this country - the under- and mis-informed public. Demagogues demonize industries they have economic intrests in (like Gore was with the oil industry) to gain more control over those industries while helping out their own companies.
Notice that it's the media that's being allowed to expand their reach with fewer checks.
Won't this give those politicians the media favors the ability to get more favorable press coverage? With campaign finance reform looking to limit the amount of coverage a candidate can buy, the press will be in a position to exert even more control over the information we get on a daily basis.
And consolidations of media outlets like this allow that power to be in the hands of even fewer people. Means fewer diverging points of view. Means the masses will be more likely than ever to believe about any cr@p thay're fed.
I'm sure there's a great conspiricy out there driving this (and I'm just upset that I'm not part of it!)
A beta version of AOL for Linux is already out there floating around. Gakkk!
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
All I have to say is that since CNN is now AOL owned, definitely take everything they say about technology with a grain of salt, e.g. CNN: "Today we reviewed two set top boxes... AOL TV and WebTV. Obviously the AOL unit is superior to the WebTV unit because it's so easy to use, no wonder it's #1!" I feel sorry for all of you RoadRunner users out there.
Do you like German cars?
"Progress Report: technically, our progress is nil because we have taken actions technically described as 'doing squat'"
Thank you, see you in 180 days??
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Trivial example:
I tried to avoid Verizon. Then they merged with the telecom I've got a 5-year contract with. So they get my money.
Less trivial:
I tried to avoid AOL. For example, when they bought Netscape, I deleted a lot of crappy browsers. Now, I'll be working for them (about 7 subsidiaries down).
Boycotts are a capitalist protest against individual businesses. They can't work in a mixed / corpo-socialist / neo-feudal / whatever-this-bullshit-is economy, because it really is a growing-big-fat-Them vs. shrinking-little-tiny-You; as Them grows, more of You works for them. I became a Them (for the next three years or so) today.
Now where's that big-ass asteroid I keep hearing about?
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Read the first reply to this comment and you'll see why, I couldn't have said it better. Slashdot is not some huge conglomerate that gobbles up the competition. Did it take you that long to figure that one out? :)
Alien54,
Look, when you combine the #1 Internet service provider with the largest mass media company in the world, the result is that AOL Time Warner can dictate a very large fraction of what we read in magazines, what we see in movie theaters, what we see on TV (broadcast, cable AND DBS), and what we see on the Internet on commercial sites.
If this isn't frightening in terms of mass media control I don't know what is.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
AOL's had to make several concessions on the lucrative instant messaging market.
How is instant messaging lucrative?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
This is why I can see Microsoft looking to model themselves after AOL in the coming years, with their .NET proposal, etc.
Question is, is this enough to stop Microsoft? Are they a big enough opponent?
and is this something we would even want?
Or should we look forward to the rumored AOL OS in the works? (more spam, more often!)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
FCC: Mr. Case, we think this is generally a bad idea. I'm afraid we can't allow this at all.
AOL: Is that right Mr. Chairman? Do you remember when you signed up for AOL? Did you read your EULA completely when you installed our service at home...?
Heh.
---
seumas.com
I always mentally translate their commercials' "you've got mail!" to the same voice saying, "you've got porn!". It really has a ring to it :-)
A dingo ate my sig...
There are obviously a ton of badly under/mis-informed people out there, and thats the only explanation that I have for AOL's HUGE (24 million or so, correct?) user base.
I think it can be safely assumed that a full 90% of those users, dont have the slightest technical ability. Now, my question is, how much is it really going to hurt us, when the clueless will get clueless-er and the smart get smarter. Anyone worth thier marbles will by deafult, scrutinize any news that comes from them. Look at all the scrutinizing that goes on here at Slashdot.
If you have a brain, this wont affect you.
On the other hand though, I can see it completely ruining the economy, but I think you cant kill something that is already dead.
Did you just grab my ass?
scenario:
aoltw gains control of all cable access in mid sized market
aol forces dialup comptetions out of business
dsl startup is crushed by aoltw, drops service in area because no profit is possible.
repeat throughout country in smaller markets.
this is a great idea in my opinion, consider the anti-interventionist position of the incoming regime. looks like its time to buy some aol stock. (glad i work on hardware, and not for some non aol isp)
I may think AOL and Time-Warner is but them being merged might not be so bad. The plot about them has to be rediculous and the idea that they can get away with is way off base; the U.S. government would never allow that. I think that all this stuff about AOL Time-Warner merger is way over-hyped.
:^)
I miss the Karma Whores.
Today, this would conflict with the policy of the US government to give some serious head to whoever can up big.
On a slightly different note, we all saw what kind of a bullshit generator CNN and Time and the other usual suspects became during, say, the Kosovo conflict. It'll be even EASIER now for the good ol' gov't to make sure more citizens are informed with the latest and greatest bit of quality, honest reporting. I wonder how long before they forget to include an off-switch to a AOL-CNN news feed monitor...
---
....to get unbiased news. Shame on the FCC!
Today, CNN reports that AOL is "the greatest internet provider of all time".
In a survey of several dozen Atlanta residents, AOL soundly trounced other internet providers in terms of customer satisfaction. Almost unanimously, none of the survey's respondents actually used anything other than AOL.
some quotes:
"I signed up for Earthlink but I couldn't figure out how to get that My Connection doohickey to work, so the very next day, I got an AOL CD in the mail, I popped it up, and a few hours later, when the phone dialed in, I was connected! It was great!" -Jimbob Peachtree
"I'm often ridiculed by elitist hackers on the internet when they find out I have AOL. They think there (misspelling intentional guys - it's part of the joke!) so smart, but they don't even know what they're missing, all that Bugs Bunny stuff, and Instant Messenger. I bet all they got is email, no chat I bet." - Peggy Sue Corndoggie
"As soon as I bought my first new computer, I knew I made the right choice, because when I turned it on - BAM! it said Microsoft Windows! That was great man. I only buy the best, after all. My computer has a 4 gig disk of RAM bytes too. It's so fast. So when I saw them two icons on the screen, Sign up for AOL, and Sign up for MSN, I said I was going to sign up with AOL because all of my friends are on it, and I want to be on their buddy-lists - so I signed up and I IM my buddies every day now." - "Cooter"
In other news, the last DSL connection was switched off today, as competition with Cable has forced all DSL providers out of the broadband market. It was said that the inability of people with DSL to download streaming Bugs Bunny movies due to a technical glitch, drove customers to Cable.
AOL and Microsoft are teaming up to develop a new, hacker-proof protocol to run on the internet with Windows computers, that will replace the 30 year old TCP/IP protocol, that is said to be plauged with security holes and bugs, and is due to run out of addresses later this year.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I guess you could look at it as a boycott, but it's one thing to boycott a particular company (and yes, I agree, it's almost impossible to do that effectively in today's economy). It's another thing to boycott an entire segment of an industry (e.g. mass media, or the movie biz). It's the difference between a specific, targetted action and a choice of lifestyle.
Yeah, you'll probably still be putting some money in their pockets buying something that you really need that's totally unrelated (like food). Nevertheless, it can have an impact. For example if Bigevil Inc owns a movie studio and a grocery store chain, and enough people get digusted and stop going to the movies, Bigevil Inc won't go out of business (because people still buy groceries) but they'll sure as hell notice that their studio is taking a loss.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
What would be more likely would be a partnership with the likes of Sony to build a closed device for AOL access - my guess would be sort of a cross between WebTV and 3com's ill-fated Audrey.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
great. now that aol has more money to play with.. the promotion of idiosity on the web will increase by 200%
the perfect world is a world without lag. a world without lag is a world without people
The sheep want to have one-stop shopping for everthing, regardless of the conflicts it raises in source of news, choice of content, etc. But I don't think that this is going to wake people up either. (On second thought, I'm sure it won't.) Has anyone noticed they're getting calls from their banks to sign up for credit cards, buy certificates of deposit, open trading account, purchase insurance ALL from the same conglomerate? The next 2 announcements from AOL/TWX will be a) massive layoffs and b) stock option bonus for top leadership. The coroprations give the $ to the government to make the rules; and for the most part *we* don't figure in those rules.
I'd buy that for a dollar. (canned laughter)
First, about the merger itself, some reactions from a few known and lesser-known people, and lastly a bit of content about what this means for competitive news&webcontent enterprises.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Notice how (as of 9:25 eastern) on MSNBC, there is no mention of the merger. Where on CNN.com it is the cover story (CNN.com is part of time warner.) Just remember how biased the news can be :)
Now were gonna be bombarded with AOL infomercials.
Are YOU listed?
I'm against this deal for sure, but you need to remember that a lot of things went into this: it took more than a year for FCC and FTC to review it, during which both AOL and TW stock tumbled; Initially, most pointed out that AOL was 'buying' TW, but with the value of the companies now, it's more now that TW is 'buying' AOL; both companies had to divest themselves of several smaller aspects (biggest one that I can recall was TW owning part of AT&T, which they were told to give up), so neither is as bohemith as before; both the FTC and FCC have put several restrictions on the merger, most importantly that the merged company must make open access for all that have finiacal means, including a required contract with at least two other ISPs (Earthlink is one, I believe, that they've already gotten a deal down for); and AOL's had to make several concessions on the lucrative instant messaging market.
Which means that for at least 5 years, AOL/TW will be under a government microscope -- if they so much as move to limit *non-premium* content from non AOL/TW users, you'd bet they have the goverment on their backs before you can say 'censorship'. Even with the DOJ on their case, Microsoft is much more free to do things now than AOL/TW is.
I think that the FTC/FCC is looking at this as an experiment with rather high odds for the companies involved. If it is possible for a content provider AND network provider to coexist as the same company while playing fair to all other content and network providers out there, then they might let further mergers go through. If AOL/TW play rotten tricks, they'll take action to prevent this further.
But as I mentioned above, the situation of the AOL/TW merger is drastically different now than the announcement a year ago that the thought of those two companies combined doesn't scare me as much -- it's still worrisome, but not as bad as, say, MS licensing issues.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
or can equal a monopoly. In this case, Uncle Sam has given nearly exclusive access to a group of people, who all use software that is controlled by that same group. The users will all be directed to media and content provided by the same group.
You're telling me that someone like, oh, MSNBC or the BBC, could get equal startup page area on AOL's home page?
Being a monopoly is not just about being first, or the biggest, or having the most customers. However, the FTC and FCC did just give exclusive drilling rights (bad metaphor) to 10% of the population of this country, to one group.
A monopoly exists in any of the following three cases:
1. you have exclusive control
2. you have a majority control (51%)
3. you can adversely affect the market, e.g., overrule the "invisible hand"
The FTC just gave T/W-AOL permission to do number 3, and AOL already has situation #1 over its users.
Umm...maybe you missed it...maybe I dreamt it, but didn't TW start announcing it's layoffs yesterday or the day before? The number 3000 comes to mind...but I don't recall all the details.
...
I do recall that the rationale was that the positions were going to be redundant after the merger. Most of the layoffs apparently were related to TW content (like CNN.com)
FCC: No, Mr. Case, we're afraid we can't allow this takeover/merger to go ahead. It would create a monopoly far reaching in it's insidiousness.
AOL: Is that right Mr. Chairman? Do you remember when you signed up for AOL? Do you remember the groups and sites you visited on that account? We do. We have all the logs of your visits to bizzaro dwarf world & amputeens. Are you sure you won't let this go though?
FCC: Errm, OK. Please don't tell my wife about this.
AOL: Muuuahhhaaaa, haha haahahah hahahhaahahhahahah ahhahahahahh, etcetera, etcetera...
Psychos do not explode when the sunlight hits them, I don't care how fucked up they are.
Back in the 19th century, it was normal that a company had it's own newspaper and general store.
So Time-AOL has content and bandwidth? SO WHAT!
Media of *any* kind is telling you something, it's what you want to believe that makes the news. Pravda was widely disbelieved in the USSR (and other countries) under Communism. My relatives in Communist Prague back in the 70s and 80s *knew* to read the news with a grain of salt.
Have we forgotten that?
Do we assume that the media should always be presented in truth... if so, who's truth?
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
If the merger means that my Roadrunner cable modem service makes me an AOL subscriber, I'm going to have to cancel it.
...
Damn I'm gonna miss those download speeds
Are you kidding? We don't even know what companies own what other companies, much less which companies own which politicians. Most work through front orginizations called PACs which usually have misleading names. Worse, when so many companies are nothing but subsidiaries, but not listed as such, of larger companies we really don't know what the score is.
As a trivial example Kraft Foods is owned by Phillip Morris (one of the tobacco companies), no Kraft product mentions this, and discovering this takes quite a bit of digging through long documents written in legalease. Less trivial examples are every other company in the US. Is Coke and owner, or one of the owned? How about Pepsi? Who, if anyone, owns Phillip Morris? These questions aren't exactly unanswerable, but each one would take several hours, and probably a bit of cash, to answer.
So if a politician lists a contribution as coming from a PAC called "Citizens for a sane energy policy" then you don't know without spending lots of time checking that the PAC is a front for the biggest oil corporations in the US, even then you don't know which of those oil corporations gave the money to the PAC that the PAC gave to the politician.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
PRESS STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS ON APPROVAL OF THE MERGER OF AOL AND TIME WARNER
Bolstered by the narrowly crafted conditions we adopt today, consumers will reap the benefits of new and innovative broadband products and services stemming from the convergence of old and new media. The conditions will help jump-start interoperability between instant messaging services; enable competing ISPs to have broadband access to the Internet; and ensure that AOL Time Warner, in its good faith negotiations, takes into account the needs of small and regional ISPs.
Susan, you have a check in the mail!
Remember when AOLusers were the new kids on the block? Now they own the whole fscking neighborhood! . New protocol, anyone?
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Check out the picture of the FCC commissioners on the CNN page. Hmm... I wonder why they all have big smiles on their faces?
<cough>cash</cough>
"You like Chinese food." -Fortune Cookie
Which means that for at least 5 years, AOL/TW will be under a government microscope -- if they so much as move to limit *non-premium* content from non AOL/TW users, you'd bet they have the goverment on their backs before you can say 'censorship'. Even with the DOJ on their case, Microsoft is much more free to do things now than AOL/TW is.
I don`t want to bring in politics, but that "government microscope" you mentioned, reportedly will tend to be less regulative towards big corporations, a small side effect of the recent election results.If it is possible for a content provider AND network provider to coexist as the same company while playing fair to all other content and network providers out there, then they might let further mergers go through. If AOL/TW play rotten tricks, they'll take action to prevent this further.
I don`t think taking actions to reverse the merger are an easy option, because it would mean aknowledgement that current FCC policy is in error. As long as there are conflicting interests, when things really are being played tough and every little propaganda (addvertising if you like) does matter, these issues will become apparent, and usually these are exactly the moments people say it`s 'too late to do something abut it now' and 'we should never have let it come this far'..But luckily I live in a part of the world where newscontent is bought from big networks we`re not supposed to know about.. ah, ignorance is bliss (not)..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Intelligence is definatly (sic) a recessive trait. QED
with humpy love,
with humpy love,
humpmonkey
Oh come on, in the Gulf war, and Kosovo, you Yanks killed plenty of us "Limeys". I don't know if it was on purpose or not, or just if all that complicated equipment was a bit much for your mental capacity of a monkey armed forces.
--
Another huge corporation that wants to control our lives and determine what we do and when we do it..
Or am i just a bit pessimistic? :)
No. You're a realist.
A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.
Of course this is a grab for power. The more power they have over our lives, the more they can control how we spend the (meager) wages we eark out working for them. Trent Rezor has it right: "God money don't want everything, he wants it all." Riches have always brought power. Power corrupts. At least, power corrupts those who seek it.
The men who run the world's mega-corporations certainly seek power. They also have vast riches. Anything that gives them more power, more riches, or allows them to thurther seek out power and riches, they'll do. To a mega-corporation, rules and morals are simply obsticles to me maneuvered around, toppled, or brutally crushed under the wheels of the huge corporate machine.
AOL-Time Warner is no different. Such is the status quo. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets screwed. Unfortunaly, the money they make also brings political power, or at least political clout. What's frightening is how we allow such corporations to buy influence in government, and do so in such a very blatent and obviouse manner.
Some have argued that the people who work for and run corporations are citizens to, entitled to government representation. I argue that most people work not because they agree with a corporations actions, policies and politics: most employees are essentially drones in a corporations. Gears in the machine, if you will. It doesn't mean they like what their company does. It doesn't mean they agree with the positions of their corporate superiors. It means they are working to prodive themselves and possibly their family with the essentials of life, and perhaps afford some non-essential goods as well.
In most large corporations, the salaries of the CEO is about 2 or 3 powers of 10 (if not more) greater then the salaries of the average employee in a given large corporation or mega-corporation.
BTW, it'll be interesting to see the finicial report of electric utilities in California. I imagine that despite the lack of power generating facilities, their "high fuel cost" for producing power, and blackouts (rolling and otherwise), they will still manage to pull in a pretty decent profit. Oh yes, they'll eventually increase their power generation capabilities. However, the foundation will be poured upon our bruised and broken back, as well as the reminants of our bank accounts.
On the other hand, in the United States, electricity has become an essential in life. Without it, our furnace fan doesn't work. Without it, our (somewhat) affordable perishables spoil. People (and perhaps even other corporations)will only take astronomical power rates for so long.
There's already the threat of a rate revolt in California. The fuel's there. We're just waiting on the spark.
Anyone have a lightning rod?
--
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Eventually, there will just be one giant media corporation that provides our entertainment and news. Once that happens, we'll finally be able to rely on the news that is provided to us, because there will be no other bothersome entities to provide conflicting reports! Finally -- news you can trust! *COUGH*
---
seumas.com
I wonder how many people think that this could be a good thing? Think about it, AOL hates Microsoft. So, if AOL/TW jumped on the Linux bandwagon and released a version of AOL for Linux with, say, K-Office or Open Office integrated with a Red Hat or Mandrake (just an example) Distro, all on 1 cd that comes free with your time warner cable internet and cable tv. How many AOL members would switch to the AOL/Linux? I am betting a lot because of the Internet interface that they know and love and the FREE office suite and OS.
Just a thought passing through my head, it know it is HIGHLY unlikley, but it is possible!
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
Doesn't AOL universally use encrypted-blacklist style censorware?
If so, the govt. might not need to bother trying to make censorware manditory, when it looks like the only way to avoid it will soon be to go to a specialist provider that doesn't get its bandwidth from the new megagiant (and thus miss out on the great home entertainment/cable/music one-stop package deals that I imagine will soon be the norm).
Is there any way for AOLers to opt out of having their feed auto-censored?
If not, the political, social and especially financial clout of that hidden blacklist is going to be amazing.
Could you sue for libel if mis-catagorised, despite their disclaimers? You could definitely show damages...