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 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.
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.
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
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
Aim has encryption now! Check out AIM Encrypt for a crude (everyone shares the same key) method of AIM encryption. For a more sure method, grab a free key from Thawte and use that instead. It works (I tried it), and will give you a unique keypair. (It gives you a padlock next to your screen name in AIM).
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
Actually, with broadband, Voice over IP sounds quite decent. Equally on par, and probably better than, cellular phone service. And this is usually with services that don't do much compression to the audio. Squeeze the bitrate down, and it sounds damn fine. Services such as Vonage don't exist due to crappy quality.
Video is another issue, but can still be quite good when done correctly. Phone companies are even offering television service via a set-top box and DSL lines. A couple of channels get streamed down to the box, and when you change to one that isn't being currently streamed to you, the server at the central office switches what it is sending.
I agree, obviously, that any of this done on a dial up link would be rediculous. Remember however, that you don't have to be an AOL subscriber to use their IM service. Hell, they even own ICQ which is the service with the most subscribers as any.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
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
Next, the service. AOL servers that speak the AIM protocol have this nasty habit of randomly kicking users from time to time. Maybe this is supposed to be "normal", but the two 1980s protocols I mentioned above don't seem to have this problem.
Finally, we have the participants. This is where AOL wins, hands down. Everyone and her mother and her dog use AIM, and thus, if I must choose only one IM protocol, then this must be the one. Many people are effectively faced with this choice... not everyone uses Gaim or Trillian or whatever IM multiplexers there are out there. It seems that if AOL is better, this is the reason, and, I might add, it's not really a good thing.
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*