Slashdot Mirror
FCC Lifts AOL IM Limits
TypoNAM writes "'The Federal Communications Commission has agreed to lift restrictions that have barred AOL Time Warner from offering advanced instant messaging services including videoconferencing, according to a source familiar with the decision.'" A couple of years ago, the FCC made a big fuss about how it was watching out for the public interest in approving the AOL/TW merger.
Good, hopefully AOL will make a decent cross-platform video/audio instant message system.
Does this mean that the IM can have 128 bit encryption? I know gaim and trillian have it on their clients when you use AIM. I hope AOL will do this also.
"It sounds like a valid reason to me. As usual, most monopolies, especially in technology, get broken down by the market sooner (Word Perfect) or later (MS?)."
I'm still waiting.
With the majority of AOL users still dialing-up it would be a shame to integrate this into their instant messaging clients. Even with broadband, Video/Audio over IP is still plagued with poor performance. It would only serve to increase the bloat of the client, something I'd rather not have to deal with.
You know, the relationship between AOL and AIM is interesting. Obviously AIM orginally began as IM's on AOL's network. AOL's huge market share is what pushed it all along. But now, I know only one person who stil runs AOL itself. Everyone else uses AIM or trillian, etc. It seems to me that the decline of AIM's popularity is only because of AOL's decline in popularity. Not because of the FCC's rule on videoconferencing. Just kind of a random thought I had.
The reason for the original ban was that AOLTM could use its marketshare and its regional cable monopoly. It was conceivable that AOLTM might find ways to throttle competing AV chat clients, forcing users onto AIM's AV chat.
I (sorta, because I use trillian) am pissed that none of the networks work together - it reminds me of small children fighting over a glass of orange juice and spilling it in the process.
At the same time I think deliberately crippling a product like this isn't going to help the average user - if you really want competition between the im makers, let them compete - add features in this case. Tit for tat, and soon somebody is paid by ??? to research a new streaming codec and comes out with something that kicks ass.
Software doesn't get better if there is no push (from customers / marketing / management, etc) for it.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Given that Apple has added video to iChat, and that MS is planning to fold video messaging into Longhorn (or whatever) why not let AOL compete in the market?
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
The restriction was that AOL needed to make their instant messaging network interoperable BEFORE they could begin including video conferencing technology into AIM. It was suppose to be an incentive for them to open up their monopoly on instant messaging.
-- Kircle
The field was clear for years for someone else to develop such "advanced" systems. Everyone (except Microsoft, whose system was unwieldy and difficult to work with, despite its being included with Windows) dropped the ball despite having an open field. If AOL can now develop such a system, and people like it, more power to them!
The FCC restrictions were bogus. AOL NEVER restricted its own userbase from downloading other IM clients. They had just as much right to try to block out others illegally hacking into their network (hint hint--> Microsoft) as any ISP has over blocking out spam. Microsoft complained the loudest over AOL's potential monopoly (isn't that irony for you?) and then contributed a substantial amount of money for campaign contributions. Now let's look at Microsoft with its closed Xbox system (which I own one). Do you think for a moment they'll allow AOL or Yahoo to port their instant messaging to the Xbox(or Mozilla Firebird as a browser)? No way. Incidentally, Sony sought out AOL to provide the Playstation2 with IM capabilities once Sony gets serious about online playing with the release of the PS2 hard drive. To stick these restrictions on AOL for the past three years while failing to break up Microsoft's OS and Office productivity packages screamed of hypocricy. AOL should be complaining to Justice, the FTC, and the FCC about how all the other cable companies have blocked AOL from offering AOL Broadband directly to their customers... BYOA is not the answer, it should be single-source billing...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
When the rule was made IM was regarded as the next killer application. The fear was that IM was going to replace email and AOL would corner the market. Reality was IM is a usefull utility.
AOLs current problems have nothing to do with IM clients. They did well in the modem era because they had a easy to use product that was well marketed. AOL has done a great job fscking up the transition to broadband. Plus TimeWarner already had an online service prior to the merger... Roadrunner...
-- $G