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.
...i'm much more likely to give my info to a smiling face!
Go read some bible: nubible.com
I remember reading about these restrictions back when they were first imposed and thought to myself, "AOL will continue to lose market share and will eventually convince the FCC to lift the ban."
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?).
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Will having the FCC permission to add video capabilities to their clients really going to effect users for the worse? I personally am of the opinion that it will not matter too much. iChatAV already has the capability in it. If AOL's is similar I think this might be a great thing.
Excuse grammer/spelling I am in a rush.
100% Crunchier
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.
Maybe I'm missing the point a little here, but why would advancement in video confrancing technology for customers be against public interest? Surely advancement in technologies is IN the public interest?
I have ICQ Pro (ICQ is owned by AOL) and it has features like this built in, though I have never used them. I do believe it makes use of external software like Microsoft's NetMeeting though, which is not distributed with ICQ Pro.
Do they get away with this because ICQ is not considered AOL IM? Even though ICQLite can talk to AOL IM, and I think AOL IM can add ICQ contacts to their list.
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.
Michael,
Relax, buddy. "Why even have laws" (as dept.)? This decision is fundamentally about allowing a company to incorporate videoconferencing capabilities into its own software.
They're not dismantling your beloved welfare state just yet. Don't freak out on us. Although I suppose the whole purpose of having laws is to keep the evil corporations from eating our children, right? So perhaps your concern is justified.
Justin
Seriously, since the current administration sees deregulation and tax "relief" as being the solutions to every business problem (real or imaginary), this isn't unexpected. And remember, what's good for AOL/TW is good for ...ummm, Steve Case?
Microsoft bundles the MSN messenger with their OS getting an unfair advantage over the other IM providers. Most workplaces don't allow their employees to install any software on them, thus they turn to MSN messenger which is already on their Windows systems. Has the FCC done anything to stop Microsoft from doing that? Anyone know?
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
While I applaud the audacity of calling people slashbutts (and still get moderated up), I have to ask: is it really necessary to have the article text posted here on Slashdot? I mean, news.com isn't going to get itself slashdotted, so there's little danger of the article text being unavailable.
I guess we're just doomed to be subject to rampant speculation, rumors, and hearsay here on Slashdot. We should really all be reading the article so we can draw our own conclusions, then proceed with the discussion...but hell, I guess I'm dreaming.
You slashbutts.
They don't need to come up with another incompatible standard. Go with Apple.
Steve Jobs already mentioned that his stuff is open, and that he's waiting for other companies to copy it. This would be the perfect way to do it.
iChat AV is awesome, but currently, it can only do VC with other iChat AV users (on the Mac).
Hell, iChat already uses the AOL protocol and everything... What are they waiting for???
-- askien
Well, I doubt that AOL will host the video traffic themselvs. There's no reason why Gaim and iChat couldn't work together...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It seems to me that part of the concern here is that offering these services will encourage further network effects that lock users into a particular IM system, which includes not only the service but the protocol as well. If competition really is important, then why wouldn't the FCC say something like this to AOL? "If you want to provide this kind of service, then you must use a standard format for delivery so that other service providers will be able to compete." It seems to me that the proprietary and constantly changing nature of AOL's AIM protocol and its clients is a large part of what is restricting choice (and, ultimately, innovation) here.
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
One of the key players in the persuading the FCC to let AOLIM be kept is William P. Rogerson, former FCC chair and economist at Northwestern. I couldn't find his paper but the dissenting opinions of Gerald R. Faulhaber and David J. Farber; both UPenn Econmics professors give a great opinion on why AOL has been behaving badlly (All gentlemen have held high ranking positions on the FCC). Its in PDF but their criticisms of Rogerson's draft are striking,
"AOL Time Warner's strategic behavior has not changed, and that is perhaps the most compelling evidence that they believe they can eventually tip the market by refusing to interoperate. Such strategic behavior only makes sense if the market leader expects the market to tip in its favor; otherwise, interoperation is their best strategy. But the Petition and the Affidavit are strangely and tellingly silent on this key piece of evidence.
We also note that AOL Time Warner failed to exploit its newly acquired cable assets to deploy an AOL Broadband service. Since the firm had no Broadband service, it had little reason to care about advanced IM services such as two-way video that are not feasible on dial-up connections. However, AOL Time Warner has just recently begun marketing AOL Broadband, apparently now trying to capitalize on its cable assets. It should not come as a surprise that as AOL Time Warner rolls out its new broadband offering, it wishes to be relieved of the requirement to interoperate if it offers an IM-based high-speed service. Their behavior suggests that they may well have such a service ready to roll out soon as a feature of their AOL Broadband, and wish to keep their network effects proprietary. In fact, it is precisely this case that the Merger Order anticipated when it imposed the IM condition.
We urge the FCC to proceed cautiously. While conditions have evolved since the Merger Order that suggest network effects and tipping are not as urgent today, other evidence suggests that it is perhaps even more urgent. The FCC needs to recall that AOL Time Warner has in its own hands the ability to offer advanced IM-based highspeed services without let or hindrance: it need only interoperate with its competitors, as it promised the world it would do two years ago, to the benefit of all customers."
Real men use SMS (because real girls don't use IM).
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
I don't buy this argument -
Reality Check But, hey who am I to say anything. Our Good old friend MS destroyed Netscape - so what are you going to do about it ....
I personally believe the conspiracy angle more .. after all this is the same FCC that adopted new rules that will permit broadcasters to expand their control of media properties. Michael Powell is not fooling anyone. From the same article "With even greater power, big broadcasters such as News Corp., Disney and AOL Time Warner Hey, look who's here ... will amass even more cash.", a lot of which will go to the Bush Relection coffers - so now you understand why Dean has to spam but Bush doesn't.
God help me ... I am so paranoid these days of this "New" world ... lol ...
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
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.
*shudders* so many chins...
This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
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!
I'm not surprised in the least that the current (toothless) incarnation of the FCC is letting AOL slide into video chat without getting anything in return. However, I had forgotten about this restriction when iChat AV came out and now my mind is filled with all sorts of questions.
How closely did Apple work with AOL on iChat AV? I thought the borked SIP implementation was to promote Apple hardware (iChat AV only videoconferences with iChat AV... which only runs on Macs), but now I wonder if that was a result of negotiations with AOL. AOL's IM, at the time, was the only major IM service to not support video, right? So, was the iChat AV-only restriction a way to prevent Yahoo IM/MSN Messenger growth on the back of Mac-to-PC video chat?
Was the borked implementation just a proof of concept for AOL IM-only video chat? (I find this hard to believe, as it implies AOL drives iChat develpment. iChat AV was an obvious evolution of the original iChat, which included some of the iChat AV widget images hidden/unused in the resources of pre-AV builds.)
Was iChat AV a way to build up a large (fanatical) user base for AIM video chat while working under the FCC restriction? A trojan horse that would give AOL an edge once the FCC (inevitably) caved? Only time will tell, but this would be my bet. Look for iChat AV to AIM video chat soon(-ish) and continued incompatibilities.
I mean, how likely is it that AIM will be able to video chat with MSN and YIM? If they were going to go for compatibility, they would have done it already (and by doing so, had the restriction lifted honestly -- by meeting the FCC's original concerns).
The answer to it all:
SSH, irssi, screen and bitlbee
Bitlbee runs a lil' IRC deamon on your box, you connect to it, and then, in the #bitlbee channel you can have your ICQ, AIM, Yahoo, MSN contacts..
You just write
Theirnick: message
and it's automagically sent to them...
BitlBee
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*
Well, they have had it for a long time. Well, OK, it was one on one video but the infrastucture was/is there. I remember back in AOL 3.0 or AOL 4.0 they had beta tests of video conferencing in the IM software... on regular AOL (which is always last in IM technologies) and not AIM.
;)
Then it was going to go back into beta testing after a year long hiatus but the AOL-TW merger happened and it was put on ice for a little while. I'd expect some news from AOL soon
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
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