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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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 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!)
AOL - Internet for Idiots
Time Warner - Service Sucks
Can the combination be that much better?
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'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.
"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".
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
I think it's a bit ironic how you're complaining about biased news while reading Slashdot.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
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.
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.
--
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
um, done. didnt you see the comdex best in show consumer electronics gateway aol linux device? (seriously)
--Asa
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"Progress Report: technically, our progress is nil because we have taken actions technically described as 'doing squat'"
Thank you, see you in 180 days??
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.
Perhaps not, but we do have the right to demand that corporations adhere to certain rules and principles. It's the price they pay for the protections and benefits that we, the people, grant them through our government.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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
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"
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...
---
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.
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.
With half a million less votes than the Democrats, this would have to be a new definition of "majority".
Almost. They have to open IM for any new versions that introduce new capabilities like video. They do not have to open their current network!
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
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.
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."
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...