Slashdot Mirror
AOL/Time-Warner Won't Advertise Competition
mojo-raisin writes: "According to this article on ISPworld, AOL/Time-Warner is refusing to run advertisments for small and medium-sized dial-up and DSL service providers on their cable network. This practice is reported to have begun shortly after the merger announcement last year, and is taking place in New York, Texas and Wisconsin."
Hi, I run a milk bar. I refuse to stock curry powder simply because of the fact that it gives me stomach pains. If you don't like it, get the fuck out of my shop.
Was this post supposed to mean something, or was he just making some random statement about his profession?
This is why government should have a firm role in ensuring that large companies are kept under control.
Citizens have rights. Corporations have no rights.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
All you're doing is supporting their stock price. They're not going to listen to you. You can't get enough shares to matter.
Sorry, thanks for playing.
A corporation is an entity separate from its shareholders (which is why people list companies as defendents of lawsuits and not the shareholders). The shareholders have rights, but no more rights than non-shareholders.
And this makes it worse than CNN, how?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not to mention that ISPs should certainly be subject to the same common carrier status.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you're poor, I would assume that meant you didn't have $52.28 to spend buying a piece of paper. As a college student supporting myself and making less than $9K a year, even $10 was a lot of money and not to be squandered.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
bah!
-- /.er, of course, in which case you should whine that the terrain should conform to your map, but not actually what is shown on your map, but what you interpret the map to really mean. And if the Earth is so evil as to not conform to your imagined reality, it should be forced to. Because as we all know, freedom is good, unless it's someone else's freedom.
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Unless you're a
What is wrong with Fox News?
There's a difference.
Let's say you live in a tiny little town in NY State, that gets cable through TimeWarner. There's a good chance that you cannot get *cable* TV through another provider. It's simply not offered.
TimeWarner has a monopoly on cable in your area.
Let's say you just moved there from out-of-state, so you'r not familiar with the area, area businesses, etc...
Now, let's say that AOL/TW doesn't offer broadband services in this small town - only "basic" cable (of course with pay channels, PPV, etc...), and that AOL doesn't have a local dialup to that town.
AOL/TW isn't a valid ISP for your area.
But - they refuse to accept advertizing money from people who *are* valid ISPs for you, even though they're not in direct competition for *your* business. If they can't advertize themselves to you (which they will do anyway, regardless of whether it's available to you) they sure as hell won't advertize competition.
That's illegal use of a monopoly.
That's what this is all about.
As long as you're not a monopoly, you can generally do whatever you want to do - within reason, of course ("reason" being defined by shareholders, normally, not by morality) - but once you become a monopoly, special rules apply to you, because as a monopoly, you have a LOT more power to do the "wrong" things.
Budweiser doesn't have a monopoly on beer (sad day if they did!) =)
AOL/TW does have a monopoly on cable/broadband service in many areas, and dialup ISP service in some.
That's why they're governed by different rules.
Of course, I'm just waiting for AT&T to merge with them...AOL/TW is scary...AOL/AT&T/TW is *much* scarier. Sad thing is, it would make sense, seeing the direction things with AOL/TW are taking. THe first of the super-conglomerates is testing the waters right now - seeing what it can, and can't get away with. With Dubya in office, they've got at least 4 years before something else is done about them (He comes from Big Oil, where monopolies are VERY common - he won't do a damn thing about monopolies abusing their power) - by that time, I have this sinking feeling it'll be too late.
Of course milk costs more than gasoline, have you ever compared the taste?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Except, of course, for all those communities where the shareholders in the original cable companies that eventually got bought up by the big companies were the friends and relatives of the mayors and councilcritters and still are.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
When cable channels, whether owned by the same company as owns the local cable company or not, run commercial breaks, some of the time is filled with ads sent along by that channel just like the program, and some of the time is empty space available for the local cable company to sell to local advertisers. These are the slots being denied to local ISPs who are in competition with some part of the business empire of the parent company of the local cable company.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It's sort of like you have to work overtime and your employer charges you 1.5 times your hourly rate for each hour of overtime you work while telling you with a straight face that they're doing you a favor by giving you the opportunity to gain extra practice and experience in your craft.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
For most of us that would be a long-distance phone call to some far away community to which we would have to relocate to get that "...all non AOL/Time Warner internet and cable setup". Most places that have cable only have one cable company running along the right-of-way at any given address, and if that cable company doesn't offer "cable modem" service, you can't get it from anybody else. And chances are that the only local phone company doesn't offer anything faster than (or even different from) dial-up over POTS either.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
And Colin Powell's son Michael is one of the FCC commissioners.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As it is, Fox News Channel is blocked in many parts of New York City/New Jersey Suburbs b/c Warner does cable service here and isn't a fan of Rupert Murdoch(sp). This is really annoying, being that I wanted the other side of the news coverage (not MSNBC and CNN's extra bias)
Either way it just makes them looks daft and insecure. Personally I tend to believe that companies should be allowed to shoot themselves in the foot like this - if the public is aware of their actions. Unfortunately I bet most of this type of thing goes largely unnoticed.
Ahh well... OPENpolicy? All business policies have to be available to the public in electronic form if you run a million dollar+ business a year? Yikes... J/K
http://windows.scares.us
You're correct, of course. But even if the government tried to do something to fix this, they'd likely end up persecuting innocent small businesses and letting the guilty mega corporations off. Just look at the examples we've seen of "zero tolerance" in schools. The bullies still do what they've always done and 2nd graders get suspended for pointing a chicken finger at someone. This is the way of government: identify the problem, craft a completely screwed up solution, problem solved!
Are you sure? Maybe you're thinking of a different Headline News than the one I know.
You *almost* see the problem. The problems we have are not because the government is not structured properly. Our problems come as a result of our immoral society. No amount of government intervention is going to make a difference at this point.
Think about speed limit laws. So many people spurn them that it would take an enormous amount of resources to enforce. And think of what it would be like to live under a system that *did* have enough resources to enforce things that were not considered to be immoral by a majority. Greed is certainly not considered to be immoral by most people.
A moral government would not protect the poor from the rich or vice versa. A moral government would punish all evil regardless of the who, where, when, or why. This is something almost no one will accept.
You want to change things? Forget the government--change the people directly because it is your only hope.
Actually I can't stand to use AOL and I curse TW everymonth my cable comes. However I think it is the right of the owner of a website to choose what is and what isn't advertised on their websites. From the article is makes it sound as if AOL/TW run websites are not running competing ads and I think that is their right. MSNBC shouldn't be required to run ads for CNN on the msnbc website (I think the article uses the Weather channel as an example).
If I misread the article to say that websites not owned by TW/AOL but that are using TW/AOL backbone are being forced to not accept advertisers that compete with AOL/TW then I think that is wrong.
However the article didn't seem to state that.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
and that is there perogative. But its not required by law.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
even then, they only have control over THEIR channels (weather channel, cnn, etc). Why should they have to run an ad if they don't want to, who cares their reason for not running it. Its their station.
They can't control stations not owned by them (MTV,VH1,ESPN), so its not like the dsl providers can't take their ball and leave.
Whether you talk about the web, tv or print media, the owner of the media (the web site, the tv station, the newspaper) should have the final say in what does and doesn't get published.
As long as they don't own every channel on the dial there will always be somewhere else to advertise.
Whether this is a good business practice isn't important, if they want to allienate people they should be able to.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
True. Good point. My bad.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
While I don't like the fact that they appear to be giving people who want to use/resell their cable network I don't see why they should HAVE to run any ad if they don't want to. If they don't want to run an ad for a dsl provider on the weather channels web page than that is their right since it is their site. I hardly think refusing to run ads for the competition should be considered an anti-trust violation.
I wonder if linux.com would run an ad for WindowsXP?
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
The difference is that VA Linux isn't the only game in town. If you couldn't run your ads on VA Linux properties, you could run them elsewhere. If you can't run your ads on AOL/TW cable, and they have the monopoly in your area, then you can't run them anywhere.
Monopolies have to play by different rules, otherwise they'd end up owning us all.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
If you're watching local TV through your cable connection, then TW could indeed refuse to carry local stations that run ads for competing ISPs, although I don't allege that this is occurring. It's possible, though.
The big problem here is that AOL/TW is using a monopoly (in some areas, at least) in cable television access to help create a monopoly in Internet access. I guess the issue hinges on whether the market is all kinds of local advertising, or just local television advertising.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The issue is not whether or not this hurts AOL/TW's competitors, as it most certainly does. The issue is who has ownership (and thusly control) over AOL/TW's cable network. Should The Washington Post be forced by the policing powers of government to run ads for The Washington Times against their management's will? Of course not. In cases like this, the stakes are high. The government must set a strong precedent. I hope, for the sake of both the American people and the business that they fairly operate, that government takes a back seat to property rights and common sense. sm
Bullshit! What we need is for people to take responsibility for their own lives. What is wrong with a corporation deciding how to use its own property? Is Budwiser going to start placing Miller Lite ads on it's beer cans? Of course not. But by your argument, the government should step in and force such things to happen.
It is the government's first and foremost duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, the government has failed at even this.
"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattel."
Ayn Rand
sm
So a media company that sells advertising doesn't want to sell advertising to their direct competition (even if they have competition in many different markets). Who cares? If you ran an ISP, would you advertise for some other ISP on your website? If you said "Yes" then maybe you shouldn't look into starting your own business. Anyone who is getting ruffled about this issue answered "yes." Is there something deeper to this thing, because it seems like another knee-jerk response to big bad AOL/TW, just because they're big, not neccessarily bad in this case.
Businesses don't advertise for their competition. It would be really weird if they did. If AOL/TW was openly advertising for Earthlink or someone, I would guess they were planning on buying them soon, or at least something else odd was up. Basically, this is business as usual.
This is exactly the kind of anti-competitive practice that should be attacked right away from the top. Abuse of market power on this level is definately something the government should get involved with.
The FTC should be all over AOL TW again and force them to get these ads run on Time Warner Cable.
--
In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
The same reason why subscription magazines that are mailed to you include those tear out subscription cards. Sure they could tear them out and save on shipping, but what if a friend is reading your magazine and decides he wants a copy?
What if a friend is at your house watching TV and decides he likes the cable service you've got? The point is since they own the service putting in ads of their own costs next to nothing, and if it catches a few extra subscribers more power to them.
Because some shows have national commercials that will run ANYWHERE.. so if say Earthlink ran that then the cable company can't block it with their own commercial. Now for the spots that the cable company is allowed to fill with their advertising, I don't see a problem with this at all..
Uh, hello? The point is that they're keeping small, local ISPs from advertising. Texas.net not only couldn't afford tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise nationally, why would they want to? They have no use for people in Baltimore to see the ads, only Texas.
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
Hmmm Catch-22. Are they allowed to? Aren't the companies under some fiduciary liability to make sure their stock holders make as much money as possible? If they report things that make their own stock go down aren't they guilty of wrongdoing to their stockholders? Or even if they reported something good about their company couldn't that be seen as stock manipulation by the SEC?
The story is here
skribe
Blog
I'd have voted for McCain. I didn't vote for Bush. Not that Gore would have been a better choice..
:sigh:
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
I keep seeing this comment on slashdot. The answer is NO. Companies (their officers) are not required to maximise profits in any way. If this were even remotely true, no company would ever donate to charities or open source. All that the officers are required to do is attempt to make a profit. The board of directors of the company get to decide if the attempt was good enough or should they fire the CEO.
Dyslexics Untie!
What to make signficiant change to the company? Get large groups of people to buy stock in the company, and change the damn company yourselves.
You are forgetting one simple fact, one vote per share. While your idea sounds good in theory, the truth is that the average consumer, even banded together by the 1000s will have zero impact on companies. You can own a few hundred shares at the most, maybe a few thousand if you concentrate your resources. Even if you get 1000 people to do the same who think like you do (good luck!) that's something like 1 million shares (at 1000 shares per person). Well the rich people own far more than that individually and there are a bunch of them. They are called the CEO, the board of directors, the high up execs, etc. I won't even bother to mention the mutual funds and companies which do things like buy a few percent of the company (many millions of shares depending on the company of course). Us non-rich and non-privileged people (speaking for myself of course) don't stand a chance against that.
Actually, I'm sure they already do. CNN is a Time/Warner subsidiary.
-Jennifer
Because Cable companies are given a local monopoly, meaning that there are zero other sources for cable. If they are not allowed to advertise on that medium, the local ISP have effectively been cut from the market. It is very anti-competitive. Coca-Cola not shipping Pepsi does nothing to prevent Pepsi from being competitive. Coca-Cola and Pepsi cannot stop each other from advertising on TV or stop a third party say RC Cola from advertising there as well, why should AOL/Compuserve and MSN stop RC ISP from advertising as well. Too bad the FTC is too meak and whipped to do anything about this enfraction.
Remember, there is no such thing as an objective, unbiased journalist, or an objective, unbiased media outlet. The best you can hope for is for a journalist to be honest and open about her biases, and consider her reporting with that in mind.
...there was a similar case a few years ago with regard to TV companies having to accept adverts for their rivals on an equal footing to, say, dogfood.
This is because we have a government watchdog system. Firstly, do you have anything similar in the US? Secondly, I wonder what will happen to trans-national services such as web content prooviders.
--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
No, you're thinking of reimbursments for easements.
The 1%-3% goes to the city, additionally cable companies also kick back additional funds that are used to fund the public access cable channel, and buy equipment.
The fees collected can be used for just about anything the city/community desires. Very rarely do they ever use these funds to compensate people directly for having poles in their yard, etc.
-This sig intentionally left blank
So, your community *is* getting money from the cable company that is roughly tied to the size of the subscriber base (if they're not getting this money, then your community employs the most ignorant contract negotiators in the world.)
That being said, I still prefer DBS...
-This sig intentionally left blank
Except...
The proper analogy is Comcast does not advertise for TCI cablevision or Americast. RoadRunner does not advertise for Telocity. AOL/TW cable TV should advertise for regional DSL.
The cable business unit is separate from the internet business unit even though they have the same parent company.
You are right that this does occur. CBS did not report on the Jackass lawsuits because both CBS and MTV are both owned by the same company (Infinity I think.)
Sig-"Out beyond fields of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." Jelaluddin Rumi
"What's to say that a bunch of poor people can't all buy stock and vote as a block?"
The idea that people shouldn't have to buy power with money. That's why we have governments - to equally represent all people. Poor people would much rather be *feeding* and *clothing* themselves than fighting off mega corporations.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Yeah, Comcast won't plug on DTV, but you know what you get instead? DirectTV ads. Yes, they plug themselves. Primestar, TCI, Dish Network.... everybody does it. It's their service, they can do it if they want to. (The interesting bit is that if you happen to have cable and dish running side by side on the same channel, you'll notice that the cable company plugs and the dish company plugs occur in the same slot of time).
This is primarily geared for people like myself, who don't have cable or satellite service. Unlike most people, I don't want it or need it- but say I'm at a friend's house and we happen to be watching Doctor Who on BBC America. The DTV plug comes up and I realize, "hey! If *I* get DTV, I can watch Doctor Who!" It's incidental advertising, targeting not the actual person paying for the service, but those who aren't who happen to be "using" it anyway.
So from that standpoint, with AOL on the ISP end and Time Warner running the pipes, it seems to me that disavowing local ISPs to advertise makes perfect sense. Do you see Dish Network ads on DirectTV? Earthlink banner ads on the Stargate web site?
Yeah, it may suck- but the local companies still have the local stations and radio to advertise on.
Why would they allow advertising of competition on their networks? You dont see ABC advertising on FOX or CBS. It's a tough business, and AOL having their own very large TV networks is a big boost for them. They'd be stupid to allow it.
This could become a BIG problem. Just think about it. AOL/Time warner have a lot of things under there control. What if they told CNN they could not run stories that made AOL/Time Worner look bad. The effects of this merger are just now being seen but I think they could get A LOT worse than refusing air time to competitors. This is one mega company that we should keep a very close eye on and hope the Bush administration will support the people who are hurt by these type of business practices. Only time will see.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
This has nothing to do with monopolies. It's just the natural and healthy survival of the fittest that has always been the core of capitalism.
While mergers, acquisitions and growth are certainly a healthy component of a capitalist, it is somewhat rash to assume that the consequences of these free market operations are justified simply because of they occur in the free market. The notion of certain industries (especially those with high fixed cost and low marginal cost) shifting toward monopoly is one of which economists have been acutely aware of for decades. The same economists who champion what appears to be your ideal; a "laissez faire" economy, are vigilant in their attempt to maintain a market that is conducive to healthy competition. It is generally agreed that monopolistic practices are one's which preclude market forces from operating in way that benefits the consumer. While the shift toward monopoly may be one which is a cause of natural capitalist tendencies, the emergence of a monopoly works to stifle those tendencies. Herein lies the tension between regulation and allowing markets to operate in as natural a way as possible. Your argument, and this article, both offer an all too lucid demonstration of this tension in operation.
If you can't get a thousand people out of, say, a few hundred thousand, to agree with you, then you probably need better ideas...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Actually, you could probably propose a motion of your own. Send in a shareholder proposal. There are activists who, rather than simply whining, buy a share and put together decently-written proposals in the hopes of convincing other shareholders.
I've seen quite a few shareholder proposals -- particularly ones related to GM foods and all. They get published along with the annual reports and are available for voting. Of course, they're often completely devoid of citations, sound genetics or hard facts...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
So why are they advertising their basic service to their subscribers?
Well actually its' done for an even dumber reason than you think.
While it is possible that these ads may be viewed by someone else in your house watching TV that's not really what they're for. What happens is that Comcast guys realise that while you are watching their service there is ads for other providers on various channels. Seeing as though you are such a sheep (as we all are) chances are you'll want to switch over to cable or another dish provider just because you viewed the other guy's ad. They are advertising at you to get you to stay, they figure their quality of service isn't as powerful as the other guy's marketing messages so they need to keep sending you their message.
Pretty sad really.
Um, i lived in Rochester NY for about 5 years, and we had time warner cable...and i did see commercials for dsl from the local (small) phone company, Frontier.
why would a high speed cable customer be interested in dial up access in the first place? i think spending money advertising there would be a waste - from a marketing point of view...
More accurate would be Linux browsers making it so that Microsoft.com cannot be visited (or vice versa). It's not a matter of one directly competing media, but rather a branch of one company not allowing advertisements for a completely different competing medium.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
They shouldn't have been allowed to cross industries. Television is television, and telecom is telecom. I can see AOLTW refusing to run ads for Lay's, Pepsi, Tylenol, whatever... because AOLTW has a stake in a competing product or business. I'm wondering just how much AOLTW has an interest in the publuc interest (remember FCC licences?).
Does nayone have a list of the various components of the AOLTW SuberColumbine.
They should be REQUIRED to display ads of their COMPETITION because...
So I assume you also believe that Red Hat should also be forced to display Windows logos all over its retail packages?
Corporations are made up of citizens; and it is this collective group of citizens which does have rights.
No. This is not about AOL refusing to run ads for Earthlink to their subscribers, this is about Time Warner refusing to run ads on the CABLE SYSTEM about ISPs other than Roadrunner and AOL. No one is saying that AOL and Roadrunner have an obligation to run ads for other ISPs, the issue is the media outlet.
What if Roadrunner blocked access to Foxnews.com? Would that be ok because Fox is a competitor to the media outlet of AOL/Time Warner?
Probably never. So why is this such a big deal? If I was CEO of AOL Time Warner, I wouldn't allow my competitors to advertise on my sites, either.
Besides, it's not like there aren't PLENTY of other places to advertise on online. Most major sites that rely on advertising are still having to fill space with in-house ads, up to 30%, so it's not as if you couldn't paste ads all over Yahoo if you wanted to.
You can't claim censorship when AOL only accounts for a tiny fraction of the total websites in cyberspace.
DUH!!! Like this makes sense to me. It really surprises me that people can complain ahout something like this. AOL/Time Warner advertising for other providers is like asking Coke to advertise for Pepsi! I know, AOL/Time Warner is a huge comapany, but so are Coke and Pepsi. Also, if I were a medium sized ISP and I was offered to run ads for a smaller ISP what do you think I'd do? All companies in the same industry, big and small, compete with each other. How do you think that Microsoft was built? Do you think they were that big in one day?? Have you even seen Pirates of the Silicon Valley?? Asking the bigger one to advertise for a smaller one that can one day get as big or bigger then the bigger one would be suicide!
Gorkman
Also, Ameritech and several other companies all offer DSL and everywhere in the US can choose from SEVERAL Dss dish vendors.
My point is that AOL/Time-warner have NO monopoly. The only way they do is if you choose NOT to do any research and just accept them. I bet if you got out your phone book and started calling around you can get a all non AOL/Time Warner internet and cable setup.
Gorkman
are you fucking crazy! If someone buys land and fills it with waste, they can:
A) bury it 20 feet deep and not tell the person they sell it to
B) much more importantly, the next time it rains, all of that waste is going into the water supply. Nope, not hurting anyone. All on my own now worthless property.
"huhuhuhh, go away. we're like closed or something"
Besides that you could always go with a dish or just stick with your antenna.
--
Free Mac Mini
Now for the spots that the cable company is allowed to fill with their advertising, I don't see a problem with this at all..
--
Free Mac Mini
Except that an ISP isn't a Cable TV or a telephone service.
--
Free Mac Mini
...except that George Bernard Shaw died some fifty years ago, so I'm not sure how much help he'd be. Unless there's another Bernard Shaw I'm not aware of.
The cable business unit is separate from the internet business unit even though they have the same parent company.
And this is when someone bangs you in the head with a cluestick and reminds you that you don't own AOL/TW, and that therefore their internal decisions about who to advertise for and not is none of your damn business. Having the same parent company is as good a reason as any. That you happen to not like it is completely unimportant. I don't suppose you think Free software should disappear, just because some guy with no clue doesn't like it... I'm sure AOL/TW has the same mindset.
Bjarke Roune
AOL/TW would hardly benefit from advertising for a competitor. Why exactly should AOL/TW enter into a deal that harms them? I wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do that (if you are rational). AOL/TW wouldn't do that.
Humans have a right to be protected from violence. Humans have a right to property. Humans have a right of free speech. Humans [i]do not[/i] have a right to advertise on AOL/TW (why should they?). That is a priviledge granted by AOL/TW, and (hopefully) only when it benefits AOL/TW. That is as it should be.
I don't have enough money to advertise on AOL/TW, which of course means that AOL/TW don't advertise for me. Somehow, I don't think that is wrong. Imagine that, a corporation doing something that isn't wrong! Alien concept, I know.
Bjarke Roune
The Mormons do not advertise for the Baptists.
It's common practice to not shoot yourself in the foot.
Yes this leads to biased journalism, but the media has been this way since the old Newspaper Barons.
This is hardly newsworthy.
That's why I go to Slashdot for my unbiased news!
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
It's a tricky deal really. The question comes down to if this is illegal or not. Ad companies kiss ass to the powers that be all the time.
For example, Peta (even with very mild, and generally unoffensive ads) is routinely rejected from Broadcast and Print ads.
In some cases both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice recieve the same treatment. So, it's not new that the content of the message (even if it's not designed to offend) can be knocked off the air.
The question really comes down to state laws and agreements they have in the cities and states they are in.
That's trusting the fox to run the henhouse. News agencies routinely regurgitate corprate press releases as news, Movie studios curry favor and manipulate journalists to generate the quotes they need to sell their movies:
Leprecaun IV
"The best movie ever" -- Studio Shill Press
And some studio's go as far as inventing their own journalists.
Get real, I know some journalists have ethics, but I also know that there is always someone willing to trade in their ethics for job stability.
Government doesn't work. We'll be running in circles if we depend on government for just about anything--especially for anticompetitive practicies. If we don't like this sort of practice, it's up to us, the consumer, to make noise and do something about it--the only thing that can force a corporation to change is something that makes it less money. Boycotts, bad publicity, hecklestorms--you name it.
Let's do this.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
I don't really give a rat's rear-end about the MS monopoly because I use Linux and FreeBSD (and soon Solaris) 100% of the time. I could really care less and would be affectedthe same if MS turned into a thundering titan or a miniscule mouse.
But what I do care about is how big and how bad AOL is--think about it. AOL runs cnn.com, my favorite news site, they're responsible for Netscape and Mozilla, my browsers, they run AIM and ICQ, my instant mesaging services (when I use them), and they're becoming a menacingly large ISP.
When I hear about AOL abusing their power, I sort of wonder about how far it could go. Their reach and eyeball-power is far beyond Microsoft's and includes just about everyone in the United States--whether they own a computer or not or actually care about what OS or what software it runs. This has far less, uh, "geekpoints" than MS's practices.
So when I'm advertising my DSL service and I talk to TimeWarner and get the parent-company-provides-a-competing-service-and-do esn't-like-the-competition
type of response, it's a helluva lot different and a order of magnitude bigger/more important/more anticompetitive than the Simpsons trying to advertise on NBC. Suddenly one company has selective power over which products advertise on an entire service--sort of like disallowing the Simpsons advertising anywhere, fe. I really dislike that.
BTW, this isn't too well known, but Colin Powell, father of FCC chairman Michael Powell, (the guy that more or less allowed the AOL/TW merger to take place) owns I think 1.2 million shares of TimeWarner stock and stood to profit handsomely from the AOL buyout...rather than declare a conflict of interest and abstain like any good FCC chairman would do, he went ahead and allowed it under the condition that AOL open their IM services--has this even happened yet?!
There's government for ya. See previous post for more anti-government views. :)
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
I own stock in a few companies. Here's what I could've voted on for Cendant last year:
- A vote for ele ction of the following nominees: (4 names) for all/withold all/vote for individuals
- To ratify and approve the appointment of (some company) as the company's independent auditors. Yes/No
- To approve the amendment to the 1997 stock option plan. Yes/No
So, just clarify: As a stockholder, all you can do is sit there and buy and sell and hold the company's stock at your leisure. YOU CAN'T VOTE ON SHIT.Back on topic, decisions like AOL's are good for stockholders--eliminating the competition is a Good Thing if you're a company.
Thank you.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Time Warner has been doing this in my local market for quite some time (years.) National ISP adds would usually get played, but it was impossible for any ISP who didn't purchase Nationwide "coverage" (if that's what they call it in the TV World.)
Local ISP's have been griping for quite some time that they can only get airtime on the big broadcast stations.
It has happened ever since Time Warner locally rolled out Cable Modems, and started considering local ISP's competition.
While it would be nice to try and tie this practice in with the "merger" (hehe) with AOL, I don't think that's quite justified.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
In fact, he should hit all the big media companies with AT. They're Democrats anyway, so he should enjoy it! Oh, and it's the right thing to do, too.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Hi, I run a milk bar. I refuse to stock curry powder simply because of the fact that it gives me stomach pains. If you don't like it, get the fuck out of my shop.
"Because Cable companies are given a local monopoly, meaning that there are zero other sources for cable"
Fortunately, that is going to change. WinFirst and RCN are among a large group of overbuilders that will be installing new cable systems in cities where they already exist. (www.winfirst.com; www.rcn.com) AT&T Broadband is already panicing, as can be seen in San Jose, where they are finally upgrading their infrastructure.
I can't wait to see the ad war that will break out from that. Of course all anyone else needs to do is say "We're not AT&T" and the war is over.
Until this happens though, the cable companies do have monopolies, and shouldn't have the same type of editorial control as a newspaper or magazine.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
The problem with your analogy is that when you buy shares in a company, you've created a conflict of interest for yourself. The people who own these corporations aren't usually "evil" in themselves. But in the course to make more money for themselves and their shareholders they do things which society/consumers do not agree with. Once you become a shareholder its becomes much harder to weigh the decions the company makes vs. whether your stock price goes up or down.
When you vote, you vote for who you want. You don't vote for the other guy and then try to change his policies from the inside. Therefore there's no conflict of interest: your interest is your represenative's interest. When you buy shares to uphold ideals, you're interested in not loosing your money and you're interested in doing things which may not be as profitable.
The only way to make impact by buying shares is to buy shares in companies that do what you beleive. In this case maybe regional DSL providers. But thats why this issue is a problem. Even if you support the local guys and give them money which they might use the advertise. They can't compete becasue they've been locked out of advertising by their monopoly competitor.
If there was ever a clear cut case for prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, this is it. The company in question holds near-monopoly power over the dial-up internet service provider industry and is using that power (and extension into other markets) to squeeze out the competition. Let's see them chalk this one up to "innovation."
While AOL obviously cannot be expected to advertise for other ISPs on, say, AOL, the fact that AOL Time Warner is locking their ads out of cable markets is blatantly monopolistic.
It's difficult for me to see how AOL Time Warner could think this wouldn't raise the ire of the Justice Department. Are they so confident that they'll be too tied up with MS for years to deal with this? Or do they know something we don't, and think they'll lose horrible on MS's appeal, and be too castrated to take on AOL Time Warner?
Remember, this isn't the only anti-competitive action they've taken in recent history, and they've even been investigated for some of them (Time Warner's discontinuation of ADSL was overridden by FTC, for example).
The only other thing I can think of is that they figure going after the little guys (they're reputed to be in negotiations with the big providers to do advertising) is a safe bet, because the mom and pops don't have the cash to lobby to bring this to antitrust's attention.
I mean a gallon of gas costs less than a gallon of milk that's a bargain.
A gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gasoline? That's terrible!
Damn Opec. They're probably behind this one, too.
=^.^=
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Would you expect to walk into Walmart and see adverts for other supermarkets? No. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that AOL-Time Warner (or any other company) should not want competitors advertising using their media, be that posters, newspapers or TV channels. And it's certainly not the case that AOL has a monopoly over internet access!
AOL is a bunch of hypocrites. Before the merger with TW, the suits at AOL were whining for equal access to the cable lines of MediaOne (now AT&T), TW, and the other big cable providers. Of course, they went on record as taking this stance not for their own self-interest and bottom line, but to "protect consumer choice". Nice sentiment, but of course, now that they control at least a piece of those cable lines, notice how they're no longer singing that tune.
Considering the story, it's even more annoying how TNT runs those cheesy ads for AOL at least three times an hour. (good thing there's a "Mute" button on the remote)
content that annoys their readers (like articles about the pain that a fish feels when it bites)
or content that affects more directly on the number of readers (like placing ads for other publications with the same audience).
There's even a chance that shareholders might sue a company if it does not try to protect its revenue stream, because that would mean that the company is not working in the shareholders best interest. For OAL the same principle applies: gaining a bigger market share implies trying to minimize other companies' market share. This has nothing to do with monopolies. It's just the natural and healthy survival of the fittest that has always been the core of capitalism.
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
Maybe they'll get around this one in a similar way.
If you're watching local TV through your cable connection, then TW could indeed refuse to carry local stations that run ads for competing ISPs, although I don't allege that this is occurring. It's possible, though.
Part of the 1996 Telcommunications Act requires cable operators to carry local networks. My memory is fuzzy on some of the specifics, but they might have the option of carrying non-local networks.
For sure they're not controlling... magazines... .
You make a good point about local ads, but AOL/Time-Warner owns several magazines. For example, "Time" leaps to mind. The only other one I can think of is "Entertainment Weekly", but there are plenty of others.
The question is whether or not TW can stop you from advertising in East Hogjowl, Nebraska, and my contention is that they cannot.
I will grant you your conclusion, but I think you have the wrong question. To be found liable for anti-competitive behavior under current law, one is not required to have a monopoly on all advertising media, just one.
I suppose we could debate whether such a law is "right" or "wrong", but that moves us into territory that's a bit too philosophical for my taste.
I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that over the past year or two, the quantity of technical stories has gone down, and the quantity of political / business stories has gone up. Unfortunately, the only topics most /. readers (myself included) are able to discuss in a literate fashion are those about things technical.
I guess I just hope the editors of the site think about shifting the focus back where it belongs. I have better things to do than sift through 400 heartfelt, but cripplingly ignorant posts speculating about antitrust law.
I was talking about the new Windows XP. If you buy Windows, would you like to have AOL, Real, and all kinds of useless apps bundled with it? Of course not. By protecting their users from all those useless programs how could they be abusing of their monopoly?
If Redhat or Mandrake came bundled with AOL, I would definitively look for another distribution.
And if MS refuses to advertise AOL on their Windows desktop, all of a sudden it becomes illegal to do so, they're abusing their monopoly power, antitrust violation, etc.
You think MS is Dr evil? They're just "mini Me" compared to the others.
WTF's a milk bar? I heard of one in a video game once. What do you do, sit around and drink milk?
funny munging
We've been sounding the alarm that this sort of thing could happen for a long time now. Now it's happening. What, you thought that the megacorps would play nice and try to get along with everyone?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Hey, I didn't say it was scientific evidence. :)
All I know is that I know people (including myself) who would have willingly voted for McCain over Gore, but wouldn't touch GW with a ten foot punch card. You may be right. Considering that the election wasn't actually decided by the voters, voting seems to have become an irrelevant pasttime anyway.
I do not have a signature
They may have a monopoly on the wires that run the cable network in Manhattan, but they do not have a monopoly on the channels available. If a TW channel won't carry ads for competing services, then there is likely to be a Disney channel that would be more than glad to sell commercial time for that ad in the same market. Although, given TW's recent shenanigans with Disney in the Manhattan market during contract negotiations, I think they should be required by the FCC to run commercials for anyone who can pay the money. Of course, this probably violates their "right" to free speech, which includes the right NOT to say something they don't want to.
I do not have a signature
No stake except that their golfing buddies and relatives are still heavily invested. Not to mention campaign contributors. Who do you think gave Bush enough money to edge out McCain in the first place? From my informal sense of public opinion, McCain wouldn't have needed the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court to hand him the presidency. He would have handily crushed Al Gore.
If you honestly believe that after years of living with, working with, and hanging out with oil industry moguls and having an immense personal stake (even if it now "sold") in the oil industry that Bush and Cheney are anywhere near approaching objective on the issue of oil, then you are seriously delusional. Of course, as Americans, we all have a stake in the oil industry. Without oil we wouldn't even have server farms to worry about during blackouts, or SUV's, or highway systems to drive them on. Okay, well we might have them, but not at the incredible prices we have them now. I mean a gallon of gas costs less than a gallon of milk-- that's a bargain.
I do not have a signature
It's like if AOL popped up an ad when you log in informing you that you can try AOL for 700 hours FREE!!!
It seems like AOL is letting the larger ISPs advertise because they might just buy them at some point in the future.
AOL probably wants to stifle the smaller ISPs because it would be too much trouble to buy all of them up and take their customers, so they suffocate them instead.
I'm assuming that AOL has as its long-term goal to be the only residential ISP in the entire world.
AOL/Time-Warner has competition? Oh, yes, right, from Microsoft. At last, some place I can go to be free of Microsoft advertisments!
Do not touch -Willie
Additionally, it is o.k. for a corporation to use their resources in nearly any way they see fit. If they buy a piece of land and then fill it with garbage, it will be difficult to resell, thus providing an economic incentive to not pollute.
If you think that events can be entirely kept separate from each other, then you're suffering from a real ignorance about how the world works my friend. A company could pollute its own land, sure, but to think that there would be no consequences outside of this is naive at best.
It is not "only right" that government ensure fairness.
Why? Are you happy with systems that perpetuate privilige and inequality?
Life isn't "fair" and the exetent of the involvement of government agencies is generally inversely correlated to the amount of "fairness" experienced.
Sure, life isn't fair, but does that mean we should accept that? Isn't that a failure of vision, accepting the worst rather than trying to improve things?
There is no "tyranny of the capitalist elite". Tyranny indicates an "absolute power" which cannot exist. Do the capitalist elite force you to buy their products or services? Do they require you to participate?
When the very essentials of day to day life are controlled by the capitalist elite then yes. Look at how few companies are behind the production of the goods you buy, and tell me there isn't such an elite that are responsible for the staples that millions of people require?
Nobody even requires you to stay in the country!
What a solution! Rather than fixing the system, we can move everybody elsewhere! It's amazing that people are happy to live in a system where you've more chance of bettering yourself by leaving entirely than by playing within the system.
In this "ideal" society, you simply don't enter into any contract which you feel is not a value to you. People value things differently, if you don't want to work for $5.00 per hour, don't. No one is forcing you to.
And if the alternative is death through starvation? Yes, I'm sure your position is "well, you have the choice to accept or not", but a choice between death and whatever contract is offered to you is no choice at all. When you are in this position, any contract is better than death, and in your libertarian wonderland, there is no recourse for people forced into slave labour contracts.
For you to claim that they have a right to life, is to claim that they have a right to have me support their life, which is untrue.
My there's a huge slippery slope...
Their lives are their own responsibility, not mine, and to argue otherwise, well, why don't you just start sending your paychecks to me, 'cause I want 'em, and everyone should get what they want right?
There's a huge difference between the right to life and your strawman. People can't just "get what they want", but they have the right to a minimum standard of living. Any other belief is pure selfishness and inhumane.
Additionally, it is o.k. for a corporation to use their resources in nearly any way they see fit. If they buy a piece of land and then fill it with garbage, it will be difficult to resell, thus providing an economic incentive to not pollute.
If you think that events can be entirely kept separate from each other, then you're suffering from a real ignorance about how the world works my friend. A company could pollute its own land, sure, but to think that there would be no consequences outside of this is naive at best.
It is not "only right" that government ensure fairness.
Why? Are you happy with systems that perpetuate privilige and inequality?
Life isn't "fair" and the exetent of the involvement of government agencies is generally inversely correlated to the amount of "fairness" experienced.
Sure, life isn't fair, but does that mean we should accept that? Isn't that a failure of vision, accepting the worst rather than trying to improve things?
There is no "tyranny of the capitalist elite". Tyranny indicates an "absolute power" which cannot exist. Do the capitalist elite force you to buy their products or services? Do they require you to participate?
When the very essentials of day to day life are controlled by the capitalist elite then yes. Look at how few companies are behind the production of the goods you buy, and tell me there isn't such an elite that are responsible for the staples that millions of people require?
Nobody even requires you to stay in the country!
What a solution! Rather than fixing the system, we can move everybody elsewhere! It's amazing that people are happy to live in a system where you've more chance of bettering yourself by leaving entirely than by playing within the system.
In this "ideal" society, you simply don't enter into any contract which you feel is not a value to you. People value things differently, if you don't want to work for $5.00 per hour, don't. No one is forcing you to.
And if the alternative is death through starvation? Yes, I'm sure your position is "well, you have the choice to accept or not", but a choice between death and whatever contract is offered to you is no choice at all. When you are in this position, any contract is better than death, and in your libertarian wonderland, there is no recourse for people forced into slave labour contracts.
For you to claim that they have a right to life, is to claim that they have a right to have me support their life, which is untrue.
My there's a huge slippery slope...
Their lives are their own responsibility, not mine, and to argue otherwise, well, why don't you just start sending your paychecks to me, 'cause I want 'em, and everyone should get what they want right?
There's a huge difference between the right to life and your strawman. People can't just "get what they want", but they have the right to a minimum standard of living. Any other belief is pure selfishness and inhumane.
Especially when so many huge media corporations are merging and taking each other to form such massive conglomerates, a strong government watchdog is needed to prevent these abuses of power. If AOL/Time Warner are allowed to get away with this, then they are basically being allowed to suppress their competition, and what kind of free market supports this? No kind at all.
The free market ideal that American culture reveres is only possible given a lack of monopolies and informed consumers. Here we have the worst of both worlds - a near-monopoly ensuring that consumers are ill-informed! And since other companies are just as bad, the only place we, the people, can turn to is the government. It is their duty to ensure that our needs are put first, rather than those of the corporate warlords.
Unfortunately, I somehow doubt Bush will see it that way. He's all for corporate power and unaccountability - just look at how so much of America's War on Drugs is now persued by private companies unaccountable to the electorate. Remember - you can vote to change your government, but you can't do anything to change a corporation.
I've been corrected by a Randite drone. How awful.
Bullshit! What we need is for people to take responsibility for their own lives.
Since the government represents the people, that's what I was talking about. Still, nice attempt at a strawman.
What is wrong with a corporation deciding how to use its own property?
When that usage is detrimental to people? Or do you believe that corporations are better than people? Oh wait, you probably do if you're spouting Randite crap at me. So it's alright for corporations to pollute then, because it's "how they use their own property"?
Is Budwiser going to start placing Miller Lite ads on it's beer cans? Of course not. But by your argument, the government should step in and force such things to happen.
*sigh* Strawman. Again. Budweiser is not in the advertising business now is it? Since media corporations have such a huge influence on society, it is only right that government ensures their fairness. Just look at the most respected news source on the planet - the BBC. A publicly-run organisation!
Oh, and you forgot to mention "jack-booted thugs" in your tirade.
It is the government's first and foremost duty to protect the constitutional rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, the government has failed at even this.
And equally so, it is their duty to protect the rights of the majority against the tyranny of the capitalist elite. Because since the US is so profit-driven, majority is defined in terms of monetary value, and the "majority" is actually those who control 5% of the population and over half of its wealth.
And yet, the government has failed in this duty, thanks to fools like you that think "wealth creation" is some kind of sacred goal to be valued above all else, even things like human dignity.
Remember that there is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights."
Yup, one is worth fighting for, the other is a byproduct of a capitalist society.
No human rights can exist without property rights.
Translation: if you don't own anything, you have no rights. Those that own more, have more rights to do as they please.
Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life.
In your ideal society, please explain to me how wage slavery would be prevented.
To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattel.
No, because people have fundamental rights irrespective of whether or not they own property. Only Randroid nuts like you would think otherwise. By your reckoning the homeless, refugees and hunter-gatherer tribes do not have any rights, such as the right to life. What self-serving bullshit.
It's a great philosophy for people with plenty of resources and a lack of empathy for other people. Thankfully, most people aren't that cold.
More troublesome is the fact that AOL/TW is blocking content from Joe User because Joe User's sponsor is barred by AOL/TW. "Last fall, Time Warner refused to let Westlake High use one of its channels to rebroadcast football games if Texas.Net continued as an advertiser (for Westlake High). Texas.net had advertised with Time Warner for several years prior to the fall of 2000 only to be told that Time Warner would not renew Westlake High School's TV contract if Texas.net was a sponsor."
This seems to be illegal because now AOL/TW are telling User X that their sponsors have to first be subject to AOL/TW approval. Talk about a present and long-term potential abuse of monopoly power. What other roadblocks will AOL/TW impose on people/organizations who want to use their network when they're the only game in town?
All in all, not surprising - is anyone surprised when large companies do this sort of thing?
Cheers.
This really shouldn't be much of an issue since there aren't any small- or medium-sized DSL providers left.
Would Ford Put pictures of Chevrolet Trucks all over their auto dealerships? No I don't think so, drive on.
on my Time-Warner system, in upstate New York.
I thought I saw some Earthlink commercials on CNN or one of their channels. Could be wrong. Anybody know the law on this?
The idea here is to raise the bariers to market entry. Over the last decade, it had become extremely easy to setup an ISP. The costs associated with such entry into the market were vary small. There's even a Linux HowTo for setting up an ISP.
The goal of the AOL policy is to make it more difficult for indeviduals and smaller competitors to grow and flourish in this market. As the saying goes "Keep ypur friends close, and your enemies closer". With that in mind, allow large players to continue to advertise and operate effectively in the market (to avoid such annoyances as antitrust suits) and squeeze small players out. That way you know exactly who your competition is.
Much as in the telecom industry, the biggest threats come from the small operator who develops and provides the killer app/service. It's sough to keep track of such small operators so instead, raise the bariers to entry into the market to such a degree that small operators can no longer compete, while allowing larger players (that are easy to keep track of) continue to compete. This is just good business, and as much as it pains me to say this, as far as I know, AOL/Time Warner is within their rights to refuse advertising. They can do business or not do business with whomever they please.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Way back when, I worked at one of those home-shopping channels. Unfortunately, they were not one of the two owned by TCI, who owned most of the cable distribution at that point. Very simplified, there were some laws stating if we owned a broadcast station, they had to carry us locally. Laws were vague however, and it was very common to see TCI respond, "Sure, we will carry your channel, but you pay x10 what everyone else must. Lawsuits were filed, some won, some lost, but in the end (world according to me) it was enough to stomp growth when it needed it.
Even if they can run the ads, it does not mean they are playing fair....
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
No, I understand that. My point is, people upset with companies seem to think that the way to influence companies is either to band together and vote for one of two gov't parties (not very effective), or to boycott a company (usually, not very effective either). With enough numbers, yes, "consumers" can become "owners" and actually influence the company. If people can be banded together to vote, why can't they be banded together to buy stock? There's virtually no difference between the political parties in the US. Shareholders get to elect the CEO and approve high-level decisions in companes. Which do you think will have more of an impact?
Voting on those people you mentioned is the big thing. Of course you don't vote on every little decision. That would be ridiculous. You vote on a CEO that you like and trust to run YOUR company. You don't do any actual management as a shareholder, but you do decide a few large decisions, and you do decide who runs YOUR company. That's very important.
You know, instead of thinking like a 'Consumer', why don't you try thinking like an 'Owner'. As soon as you buy one share of stock, you're a part owner of the company, and you get to vote on all major decisions, and even attend the shareholder meetings. What to make signficiant change to the company? Get large groups of people to buy stock in the company, and change the damn company yourselves.
is this.....is this for REAL?
great comedy company.
Oh, I meant to write 'inapt.' As in
inapt (n-pt)
adj.
Inappropriate: an inapt remark.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
FOX, CBS, and ABC are not monopolies. If you don't like what they have, you can change the channel. If you don't want to have Time Warner cable service in Manhattan, then you can have no cable. You basically have no television in Manhattan without Time Warner cable. It's a monopoly, so restricting advertising might make perfect sense to them, but it's abusively restrictive to others.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
Also in the news today: Bear Shits in Woods Pope Catholic Earth Goes Around Sun
Nothing like a blatant lie. Too late now...
m l
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/14/1826208.sht
You can tell a college man, but you can't tell him much.
Now to grind my own personal axe. Has anyone seen Headline News since the merger? It used to be a dependable source of real news. Now they have co-anchors, tell me who's having a birthday and spend 5 of their 30 minutes telling me what movies are going to be on TV tonight!!! The other night I saw a tech consultant (you can't pay attention to them, except for entertainment) that I thought they said was from AOL. Maybe we should call Bernard Shaw out of retirement. HE'd never allow this to continue.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Why should they advertise competition? This is just like Coca-Cola putting a can of Pepsi in all of their 6 and 12 packs.
First off, considering the coverage CNN (Time Warner) gave to the election, I doubt they'll get much sympathy from Bush... they weren't exactly kind to him.
Second, it's a HUGE jump from ads for alternative DSL providers to censoring political speech, and they ALREADY don't show you the news they don't like... it's the job of the news directors and editors at CNN.
Third, AOL has been, off and on, blocking access to competitor's websites since 1996 or so.
Fourth, an exercise: name the last President that was NOT a friend to big business.
Can we apply some critical thought here? Please?
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
The only way to understand it, is to think in a political way. In this way of thinking advertising is like "supporting", and you cannot support your competitors. But that is simply soft-thinking. A company is not a political party, although that is often forgot in the testosterone-filled fights for supremacy. You are not here for supremacy, you are here to make money. and they way to make money is keeping your clients happy. And from the moment a competitor wants to buy something from you (advertising time), he becomes a client. It's so simple.
Nobody is going to leave you (as a provider) due to some ad, even if seen in you network. They are going to leave you if somebody offers them a better deal. Concentrate on offering the better deal, all else is losing energy and money.
--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
I have Time Warner Cable and I see advertisments for DSL, and even satalite TV systems. I can't remember if this happens in the time warner exclusive channels.
However, you can bet that this is a monopolistic, anticompetitive practice. If this were M$, you'd see 300 replies to this post within the first 30 seconds. They are undoubtedly using a near monopoly in one area to eliminate competition in another area. I'm fairly certain that if the ISP(s) who are complaining can mount clear evidence, the DOJ could prosecute and win. Of course, since the United States legal system is a joke and a half, it would probably be successfully appealed and the decision reversed.
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Fine, that's their right, isn't it?
If you don't like it, start your own media company.
Or exercise your freedom of speech about it on the Internet. (like we're doing. :) )
Or post something to freenet.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
These big corporations are getting way too much power. AOL is the most popular ISP in the nation, and Time-Warner - well, they own everything Disney doesn't. If AOL-Time-Warner starts refusing to allow competitors to advertise, how long will it be before they realize they can also refuse to air any news they don't like? OR ads for politicians they don't like? And what will keep AOL from banning its users from accessing the sites of competitors? Remember, Bush is a very good friend of big business. He'd probably let them get away with this.
This is very disturbing stuff. We have protection against government censorship, but what protection fo we have from corporate censorship?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Except that an ISP isn't a Cable TV or a telephone service.
SO? We're talking about cable advertising not Internet. I work for one of the companies in Wisconsin, and they are 85+% of the ISP market. They are also one of the major advertising mediums. If they block us, that is abuse of monopoly power.
We ARE WILLING TO PAY them, afterall. We're not lookng for FREE advertising.
We've been fighting against the merger and this sort of thing for several years now. In fact, we were fighting to get access to Time Warner Cable lines for Internet access long before the merger was announced in January of 2000.
In Green Bay, and in much of the populated areas in Wisconsin, Time Warner has monopoly power from three major areas:
- ISP Power - they have 60+% of the market with the standard AOL service
- Subscriber power - they own Time Magazine and Time Warner Cable. By their own claims, 70% of ALL households subscribe to TWC
- Bandwidth power - they are the #1 provider of broadband to homes (Road Runner) and businesses (TW-Telecom)
With their abuse in advertising that was already reported, I would like to add something that happened to our company:Last summer, we placed an ad in a local newspaper claiming that "someday" we will have cable access and the price point that we planned on offering it. We received a call two days later from the regional head of TWC claiming that we were affecting their sales and they would threaten legal action if we didn't pull the ad.
Because they became the biggest advertiser in the paper shortly afterwards, we had no partners in our battle. We quietly dropped the campaign.
They must be stopped.
I don't know what anyone else considers a monopoly, but a company that can raise its prices with no follow-through from it's next 10 largest competitors smells like one to me. Worse, I think that constitutes abuse. Elliot w/ GreenBayNet
But they will soon control a "Big Brother" list of their viewers. If you don't own a dog, you won't be seeing dog food commercials, for example. They will instead put in something else in place of it. Dell could pay them money to put their commercial over the Gateway commercial from broadcast TV. The possibilities are endless!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Wouldn't this violate common carriage? I believe the US still has this practice and has applied it to cable TV and telephone service.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Honestly, they try to hide behind the shield of "consumer advocacy," but here, it isn't even about the consumer. How many of you pay attention to banner ads anyway? To TV commercials? How are one's rights being taken away when you're chosen ISP only shows you adverts for the companies they choose? The issue here is not that they are taking away your right to learn about other companies, it's about letting them have control over their own network. Wouldn't you be mad if you ran an ISP and a competitor had some kind of say over what kind of content you had to carry?
You are still free to find another ISP in your area, you're just going to have to do some *gasp* research. While phonebooks must be incredibly hard to find, you can always visit your favorite search engine and look for companies there. If you wanted to switch ISPs and go to a smaller, local company, you would probably be doing some research on the subject anyway, to find out where you could get the best price, who supported Linux the best, etc. So it's no major hardship.
I'm just getting really sick of Slashdot editors holding the opinion that no one here has free will and that we're all lemmings who are forced to use MS's OS, MS's browser, and AOL's internet service.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush