Slashdot Mirror
MS Takes on AOL in Web Access: Round III
Cenotaph writes "ZDNet has this article on how Microsoft plans on trying to take AOL's web business away. Any guesses on if it'll work?" MS tried something similar a few years ago and failed. This time, who knows? But whether the current plan succeeds or fails, this is *very* bad news for smaller ISPs. The story says, bluntly, that Microsoft plans to "...help drain profits from the Internet-access business."
In case there is anyone who doesn't know: Freeserve et al make money off of the phone call. Not a lot, but a bit.
Smaller ISP's are a lot better than the big boys - you want MS running everything? Loser
You have to be realistic here - MS've got
gazilions of dollars that choke anyone.
Microsoft is again using their monopoly
to gain access to a DIFFERENT market.
This is exactly what the law forbids.
Yet it always happens that the law
inforcement is just soft enough
to allow that to happen.
Do you see a pattern here ?
You say that POTS enables anybody to become an ISP but that ADSL and cable will change that. Why? ADSL service is cheaper than ISDN for home users on a monthly basis. Also for commercial users even though the phone companies sometimes say it is not useful for commercial traffic (I guess mostly because of bandwidth guarantees?). Equipment and service to sell ADSL service to customers is not prohibitive even for small ISPs. All ADSL does is give regular people high speed, cheap Internet access!
No, you just misunderstood me. What I MEANT was its like smtp mail servers, which are routinely blocked to email posts that do not originate from the same server. you cant send mail originating on my ISP's SMTP servers, right? They'll block it. for a reason.
And I believe that IM technology uses alot more bandwidth than a passing email.
screw M$, the REAL story is, that IM software
(including MS's) uses AOL's servers. How would YOU like it if millions of people were suddenly able to use YOUR servers, just wasting the bandwidth??? Ever heard of SPAM??? Same idea.
Cable is still locally monopolistic. I know. I'm stuck with TCI *and* have to watch the fscking Bulls because of their regional contract.
This supposed 'oligopoly' isn't doing me a damned bit of good.
Maybe AOL could respond by helping the freeware movement devalue the Operating System business.
At least then it would be a phyric victory for MS
And the desktop monopoly. AOL is doomed unless they include a distribution of Linux on all of their CD's. They were dumbasses for only supporting Windows, and therefore helping to cement Microsoft's monopoly. Now they will pay... Mark
I think one of the reasons MSN failed was because no one really knew what it exactly was. Was it an ISP? Was it something free that came with the OS? Was it a channel on TV? They should just make it really easy for people and just make it a one stop double click to get on the internet, and a doubleclick to get off. Plugins for chatting, surfing later on. And I think this should be a good thing for all of us. Screw those little ISPs! Haven't you guys noticed the crap that ISP's have been giving us? Once about a year or two ago, Internet service fell as low as $7.99 a month. And then somehow all the ISPs collaborated, then all started charging $19.95/month, and AOL (surprise, surprise) started charging $22 a month. on those smaller ISPs. It's their fault for letting it happen to them. Michael Ma
I just tried the MSN Communities page with Netscape Communicator 4.61. I get the browser FUD page as well. I find this amusing because the page claims that Netscape is supported...
That any IM software uses AOL's servers, adding much usage, especially if M$ adds millions to the ranks. THATS the real story. Its not about 'open standards' its about server usage. How would YOU like it if millions were suddenly able to send mail through your mail servers? Its called SPAM. SCREW M$
This is drastic, but the only solution that comes to mind right now is to force M$ to divest itself of any cable investment it made.
At worst, a limit on the number of investments, percentage of stock it can own or whatever should be put in place so that M$ cannot control the onramps to the internet.
Either this or force ISPs to support non-Windoze OSes (how?).
Yes, actually, this is the first place to start, because too many ISPs don't support you if you use anything else than Windoze. Tell them you use Linux, MacOS, BeOS or Solaris (for example) and that you just want IP coordinates/settings so that you can set up your PPP link, and they say "no way, and f*ck you!".
Seriously, how many times have I seen NT-based ISPs (there are more out there than you might think) only giving out Windoze-based CD-ROMs that installs MSIE and sets up your MS-DUN with everything being set up on their end to work only with Windoze?
Want it or not, I am now realizing that some form of regulation is necessary to force ISPs to support non-M$ machines... This and finding a way to stop M$ from investing in ISPs. Imagine that: having to force ISPs to return to the "on the internet, no one knows you are using a [insert non-windoze platform here]" days, imposing regulations to bring back platform-neutrality to the 'net!
I'm sorry but i am going to have to strongly disagree with your post. You confuse what would be ideal in a utopian world with was is realistic from a business economic point of view.
The fact is that at least in the states the advent of oligopic competition in markets like telephone access, cable tv, and soon internet service has brought fantastic advantages to the consumers. Take telephone access as an example. There is no local access charge and a long distance rate of 5c a minute is becoming possible. Yet the major players in both the local and long distance markets are worth tens of billion and more. To suggest that hundreds of small companies would be capable of developing and supporting the billions of dollars of infrastructure necessary is simply rediculous. Cable television is a similar market.
As for the role of the ISP, you worry that the market is quickly moving in the same direction as telephone and cable. Sounds good to me. I enjoy that fact that enormous multinational companies are throwing their resources towards providing nationwide, inexpensive high speed internet access. Of course it would be nice for small ISPs to control the market but this is only for some dream world. Small companies are incapable of providing the infrastructure for high speed access and i think just about everyone is tired of 56k access. I look forward to the day when ATT, AOL, and (god forbid) Microsoft are competing to bring me cable modem service while they pour money into technologies that will one day make cable or DSL access appear as antiquated as 9600baud modems.
A better product does not explain virtually complete and utter destruction of the competition. If you are really only competing on quality/excellence, you will get the biggest marketshare, but the old king of the hill will still be there with some marketshare and has a chance of making a comeback. That's the way it usually works. M$ products can be good, albeit bloated, but it is M$'s determination of systematically blocking the competition out of the distribution channels, to force acceptance of its products (MSIE welded onto Win and/with Office is a good example) that helped it the most. Good traits cannot explain all the marketshare they have right now -- their borg-like determination to take over at any cost explains probably most of it. In any normal market, facing any normal competitors, a company's mistake could cost it leadership in a specific market. But you would still maintain some marketshare. When your opponent is the M$-Collective, this mistake is amplified to the point where your company is usually fatally wounded. Because if M$ has a flop, no one says it's doomed -- in fact, people are incredibly lenient (sp?) towards Bill and co, as they will forget those flops (remember Bob?). But if *you*, M$ competitor make a little mistake, God help your soul... (Yes, I am saying that many companies misfortunes were caused by people thinking that M$ will take over thatever market even before bill & co have any products whatsoever, thus kick-starting a lemming effect and self-fullfilling (sp?) prophecies.)
Yes, if AOL respondes in stupid way as they doing now -- talking loyalty bullshit.
Every military people knows how important it is to cut enamy's ammunation supply. The winner is the one who can attack enamy's supply chain while protect its own well.
The strategy for AOL to win the battle is to switch the battle field. Attacking MS's own supply before it is too late.
MS's war chest is it OS and Office suit. It uses the cash cow to attach anyone who cought in their sight. Attacking the cash cow effectively will force MS to defence.
The strategy for AOL is very simple; providing free Linux preinstalled PC to its new subscribers with instant AOL hook and preinstalled Office suit.
If AOL act this way, I'm not sure that MS will be the winner.
If I remember things correctly, one of Microsoft's tactics for killing off Netscape was to get AOL to supply IE to it's customers. To get AOL to do this, they let AOL have a link on the Windows desktop and removed MSN's link. This basically killed any chance of MSN taking off but was necessary for IE was to make inroads against Navigator. MSN was deliberately sacrificed but it was also important tool in getting AOL to distribute IE. I would not say that MSN was a failure. Now that Netscape is no more, AOL is the next target.
Give sellers a big bounty for signing people up for MSN and you will be getting a lot of shops selling dirt cheap (or even free) PCs that require the customers to signup with MSN. A lot of people are going to jump at this opportunity. AOL has little chance of survival against something like that. This is going to be very different from the Microworkz thing. It's not going to be a single company that can't handle the demand. It's going to be shops in every neighbourhood.
It looks grim for AOL... I really don't care for them but I don't think they will be around in five years.
Notice he DIDNT say that the OS was better, just that the office sweets and browsers are. Anyone who has used turdperfect or Nutscrape will agree.
i am loyal to my local mom-n-pop isp, but i am not sure how long i can continue, they are raising the rate from $20 to $22 in january. they have 6K subscribers, and use linux and everything. they even took me on a little tour. i hate to say it, but i think the prices for inet dialup should drop, not increase. web servers, routers, etc. are cheaper and easier to set up than ever. but i guess the combination of bilgatus and ATT will drive up the isp's access costs to the point where they get wiped out. sucks.
I don't remember exactly how this story went. Maybe someone else can enlighten us all...
I seem to remember that Microsoft intentionally made some tactical moves a few years ago that sealed MSN's fate, in order to win the browser war. Didn't they make a deal with AOL that the AOL logo would appear on the Win 95 desktop by default, therby screwing MSN over?!
"AOL might think about it [internet access] as a profit center. That's not how we think about it."
:)
Funny, I say the same thing about my operating system.
the Slashdot lead-in quotes:
"...help drain profits from the Internet-access business."
This quote does not appear in the article.
I opened that page you linked to.
There was an add in the corner saying
"Don't be a Geek!." Thought that was funny.
(the page the add linked to doesn't work in netscape too, lol)
I Total Agree.........
For a while, I was stuck with a small, local ISP... I can't tell you how horrible that experience was... Days-long outages, $25/month rates, rude, hostile employees, etc. Thankfully, US Internet moved in, and I left Internet Services of West Tennessee right away. The reality is that large ISPs are better ISPs, due to the cost of setting one up and running it. That's particularly true with the move away from modems to non-modem broadband access. "Open access" could save them, but do we really want that? The FCC is right when it says that open access removes the motivation for others to build competing cable systems--the only question is "which approach is more worthwhile?"
Er, you're claiming that the company that has sued more spammers out of business than any other major corporate entity (maybe more than anyone period) is selling email addresses to spammers? I doubt that. They try to prevent anyone else from advertising to their users, since that's a major source of revenue.
This guy has it RIGHT! MSN can win only at the margins, but not the whole bannana. Sorry MSFT.
I use Freeserve too, but although it works for me as a user it does not work as a business. So far it has lost 3.5 million pounds and it has no way of ever making money; how long can that last? Advertising on the Web is dying due to users ignoring them. I doubt that free ISP can survive in the long run; they'll have to be loss making divisions of other businesses.
TWW
AOL unstoppable, even by M$?
Not to be rude, but you're on drugs.
Market share and size does not matter when M$ decides to go after your market. 1-2-3 was big. So was WordPerfect. And dBase IV. And Netscape. Even Java...
What wins here is who owns the desktop. That's mainly what helped MS kill Netscape and Java. AOL does not own the desktop, so, AOL is f*cked.
Bruno Majewski
bruno@pubnix.qc.ca
I am very surprised (sp?) that "everyone" seems to think this is a *new* strategy for M$ to try to take control of the onramps to the information superhighway so it can own said "highway".
Wake up, people, it has already started a long time ago with the first M$ investment in a cable operator. Did you guys notice how hard they have been pushing internet cable access, also?
The more people are moving to cable access, the less democratic 'net access will be, because the more people go to M$-controlled cable ISPs, the less people go to phone-based ISPs, which will lead to the disapearance of many smaller players.
Yes, cable (and ADSL) access is faster and all that fun stuff. But can every John Doe ISP operator/owner deploy that kind of infrastructure? Phone access gives a chance to anyone of becoming an ISP if they want to, and as long as "anyone" can become an ISP, 'net access will still be a free, non-M$ controlled activity.
Or, IOW, despite phone access being a pain sometimes, it is maybe one the last major elements that keeps the internet free, democratic and not controlled/owned by M$...
It is amazing how M$ managed to lock out the competition in OSes and apps. in the pre-load business by signing exclusionary agreements with one OEM/name brand at a time, doing this under everyone's nose, out in the open and with no one reacting untill it was too late. Now they are doing the same thing with cable access, and no one is reacting either...
Bruno Majewski
bruno@pubnix.qc.ca
Once upon a time, we called these "Bulletin Boards," and many of them, across the U.S. and around the world, were linked through something called FIDOnet. This was back when the Internet was strictly for academics and govvies. Seems to me I still have all the old (DOS) software needed to set up a an old-fashioned loca; BBS & connect it to FIDO around here somewhere, and I bet I still have a 5.25" floppy drive somewhere out in the storage shed that'll read those old disks, too. You never know...
Smells like vaporservice to me.... free internet access from microsoft? highly doubtful. Probably just marketing tactics again as usual.
--- there can only be one.... not...
If they don't stock a movie you want, they go and find it somewhere and call you when you can rent it. They carry foriegn films. They carry the NC-17 versions of movies.
See? You do find value in that store that you can't get from Blockbuster. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable for you to continue to give them your business.
It just is not fair that they can leverage themselve upon every community.
Actually, it's perfectly fair. That doesn't mean they will wipe out other businesses. I think it's just fine if Blockbuster wants to put a store on every streetcorner in the country. I don't, however, think it's ok for them to try to destroy local businesses by dropping prices there temporarily or using other anti-competitive tactics.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You can't be loyal to something you honestly don't see any direct or indirect value in.
You'd be amazed to know that people are often loyal to certain products without even knowing why. The product could be domonstrably inferior, but the person is "loyal" to the brand because they've always used it. Loyalty doesn't always make sense. Perhaps it could be chalked up to resistance to change.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
They carry less movies and charge about the same as the Blockbuster that opened down the street. I still go to my local place due to a sense of "loyalty." Loyalty is what lets a business thrive.
So you stay with the inferior business out of simple loyalty to that store or company? A dog wouldn't even do that, and people definitely shouldn't.
While I can think of lots of reasons why I would want to stay with a smaller store rather than Blockbuster, you didn't give any of them so I have to assume that you were just staying with the smaller company out of pure loyalty as you said. Now, if there is some intangible reason you stay with them, i.e. they know you by name and you like the personal service, or they cater to a specific interest of yours, then that is something that they offer that Blockbuster doesn't. This could tip the scales in favor of the smaller store.
However, just staying with them because that's where you've always rented is not what makes business work. Competition makes business work. May the best company win and all that. If Blockbuster provides everything the other store provides, and has a larger variety of movies as well (assuming you value that variety), then they deserve the business because they have built the better store. To stick with the store that offers less for the same money is to encourage mediocre businesses to continue to survive while the superior ones don't do as well as they deserve.
I'm not saying that small businesses are necessarily mediocre. As I said earlier, I could come up with many reasons why I'd prefer the smaller store. I'm just talking about a particular set of circumstances.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If there weren't some loyal people willing to expend the effort to fix and improve things, Linux would have been quickly abandoned.
That's not loyalty that keeps them there. At least not most of them. It's that Linux provides them with things that no other OS provides. These are not necessarily OS features. Some people stick with Linux because they understand that it's the best long-term choice. It doesn't encourage rampant abuses of consumers by big corporations. Surely there's value in that? It doesn't allow anyone to have ultimate control of the development direction or hi-jack the standards. Isn't there some value in that? It allows them to create new things and have those things used by others. It let's them add the things that are important to them. They don't have to get permission from anyone or beg for things to be added. Many people value that too? Control is a powerful feature.
You see, people find value in many things. That's why they stay with them even when other things appear to be superior. The superiority may be a superficial thing to them because they are concerned with larger issues. It's the value people see in things that makes them stay. Not just loyalty.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is true.
I use my disposable free email accounts for spambait, but for reliability, I use my work account.
I once got a message in my Yahoo inbox that was two months old. I complained to their admin, and got no response. Oh well. It was free.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The only way I'll ever sign up for MSN is if they give me free beer.
You hear me Billy?
And it better be good beer too. So I can get good and drunk so I can't remember my password!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In other words, when you get that spiffy new ISDN, ADSL, or Cable access set up, don't throw away that old modem, it may one day be your only ticket to freedom. A slow ticket, but a free one.
Also, bear in mind that the big news item of late about cable internet service is that cable providers can selectively block access to sites if they want.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft is aware that they will lose this trial no matter what, and I'm pretty sure they don't care because they're going to appeal and appeal it to death, and by the time it reaches the supreme court, George W. Bush's great grandson will be finishing up his second term as US President, and there won't be a supreme court justice left who will give a damn.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, you're wrong.
If Microsoft products are better - Mister "hotmail" mail account, then please explain to the rest of us why Microsoft's best and brightest engineers could not convert Hotmail's servers to NT after Microsoft bought Hotmail? Seems the Unix solution Hotmail was using prior did the job, and the NT solution MS tried to crowbar in just plain couldn't handle it, no matter how much money they threw at the hardware, no matter how much they tweaked and patched.
ZicoKnows Jack
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What paranoia?
I used to be able to buy Amigas.
I used to be able to buy OS/2.
I used to be able to get regular updates to NetScape.
I used to be able to buy Borland C++.
I used to be able to buy Lotus 1-2-3.
My CNE used to be worth something.
Things were there, have mysteriously disappeared.
Are they chilling out in a concrete cell someplace in the Nevada desert? Have they been kidnapped by UFO's?
You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, if it came from WSJ, then it's likely to be pro-Microsoft FUD.
It's possible that this may be more noise than anything else. We all KNOW Microsoft has huge cash reserves, but maybe not enough to pull off a stunt like this. . . maybe. . .
So perhaps this FUD is an exercise to see what AOL will do, or see if MS can bait AOL into doing something that could get them into trouble.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Microsoft can handle free software.
IE, FrontPage, WiMP. . .
it's free OSes that they probably would choke on.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
>they could charge just $1/month and still make $300 Million each and every year.
Actually, they would lose money like crazy. Remember, they have to pay an upstream provider for bandwidth in all areas. They have to buy and maintain modems, and they have to pay for telephone access and switching. These things are not cheap.
My company spends $20 for every 24 hours someone is connected to one of our modems.
Mike Mangino
mmangino@acm.org
I agree that there will be many ISP's, partly because there are not significant returns to scale after a certain point in the provision of a connection. POP's and tech support costs scale fairly linearly with #'s of users. The biggest return to scale is in the attraction of eyes for advertising. As internet connections get faster, it will be more and more feasible to provide content only sites without an ISP backend. AOL has a huge lead in the content market and I don't see MS getting near them any time soon.
It may get down to 3 or 4 large providers... but it will not get down to only one. This is not necesarily bad. Oligarchies consist of the
fiercest competitions there are (hello Coke and Pepsi). Prices will remain low, and incentives for improvement will be high.
Coke and Pepsi are, in fact a great example of the problems of Oligarchic markets. They "compete" but on rather narrow terms of trying to shift consumer preference. Neither side risks lowering prices because they would lower profits. If Pepsi and Coke were truly competing in the free market sense you would expect to see prices for their products at marginal cost + a reasonable return on capital. Needless to say, prices are comfortably above this limit (just how much does it cost to make fizzy sugar water anyway?). To get an idea of the pricing of a competitive cola, you need to only look at generic brand colas which are 20-50% less expensive. Even generic brands could would be probably be priced lower in a broader market as they now get their prices bouyed by an expensive premium cola market.
I personally believe that monopolies and oligopolies are inevitable and can be tolerated in most cases. But don't try to say that an oligopoly is better for the consumer because of fierce competition. You will usually be wrong.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Microspend takes on AOhell ... Do I care ?
I prefer Linux and a real ISP. I hope they waste each other in a bitter battle.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
AllAdvantage will pay you to surf, and use whatever ISP you like. You can, right now, subsidize your broadband access this way and not even feel the loss of bandwidth used for ads. Or you could use NetZero and AllAdvantage and pocket all the money. Wierd, eh? But that's capitalism.
So why do /.'ers expect Microsoft to stand still? It isn't just narrow and devious motives that drive them. They do pay attention to larger trends.
I wrote parts of this stuff
This is giving me a lot of stress, because I've got a serious moral problem with the idea of wishing another person dead, but Bill has managed to get me to that point.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
> And some bozo AOL spokesperson said "It's all
> about loyalty" or something to that end. Screw
> loyalty!
Heh. Yeah, "loyalty" in the sense that opressed masses in a totalitarian regime are loyal. 'Tis called vendor lock-in, folks.
> Loyalty only promotes inefficency. If we were
> all "loyal" to Linux then there would be no
> reason for it to improve. We use it because
> it's great and keeps getting greater.
Disagree. There are two sides to this coin.
It's a lot easier to go somewhere else than it is to fix problems. If there weren't some loyal people willing to expend the effort to fix and improve things, Linux would have been quickly abandoned.
Real loyalty comes when you're willing to invest something of yourself in a thing or a person; when you have a vested interest in their well-being. It's loyalty to the software and to an ideal that by and large keeps the Free Software coders going. Even pragmatists like ESR have their own set of (largely pragmatic) ideals that they are loyal to, from which their loyalty to Linux stems.
I understand you're looking at loyalty from the standpoint of "we'll stand by you, no matter what", but there's just more to it than that.
It's not real loyalty if someone will stand by you, but then not bother to help you.
If people were not loyal to Linux, they would have no reason to improve it.
---
DNA just wants to be free...
I read this same article on the train to my commute to work in Wall Street Journal..i didn't
see any credit to zdnet in the paper, and no credit to wall street journal on the zdnet site..
oh well.. MS and AOL are both the same.. they're happy by getting the idiot users on both ends.. cuz it means idiots will spend more money.. they don't know what value is... they see cheap and a big name to back it up and they go for it.. oh well.
Indeed, AOL is one of the few companies that has pissed me off more than MS. I speak from several years of experience using AOL for customer service at my last job. I can easily see how AOL could claim to be the next MS. See if any of the following sounds familiar:
- Their software quality is consistently poor. Awkward design, misfeatures, and bugs are too numerous to count, and the client is hopelessly bloated.
- "Improvements" are made for marketing purposes only.
- AOL programmers seem never to consult prior art; new features always seem to be designed without thought or consideration to the user experience.
- Once an "improvement" is made, any bugs or faults in the code or design are permanent. Code is never fixed unless it is fatally broken.
- Despite the above, AOL execs are somehow able to convice themselves that they are superior to the rest of the world, and this hubris colors everything they say.
You can imagine how I cringed when I heard AOL bought Netscape last year. Now AOL is claiming to be the next MS, and one can only hope that they'll both bring each other down...I can see the fnords!
Microsoft thinks it's anti-trust troubles are just about over...if they (or AOL for that matter) started to take over in the manner they described,
putting countless local ma-n-pa ISP's out of business, I would *hope* the government would step in.
I don't see why. Very few ISPs actually make money through the ISP itself, in the first place, especially small ones; this realization was made a couple years ago. All the competition has already dropped prices to a level where monthly access rates hardly cover the associated costs to run an ISP, hence why most are looking for alternative revenue streams (web design, consulting, banner ads, products, etc).
having the gov't step in to stop AOL/MSFT from essentially shutting down the small handful of "ma and pa" ISPs that might be in the black, would be almost akin to having Pizza Hut broken up into "baby Huts" to keep them from quashing some instance of 'Luigi's pasta palace' in Podunk City, Arkansas.
However, if this actually came at the cost of quality, that's another story. However, it probably wouldn't, as there would likely still be enough local competition in the next eschelon up from "ma-and-pa", who have already moved on to alternative revenue streams to supplement income.
Basically: if you're trying to enter the ISP-only market right now, you're about 2+ years too late in 90% of the US. If you're a "ma-and-pa" ISP who's been around, but haven't yet moved on, you'll probably go down anyway, regardless of MSFT/AOL action.
Hmm. So they view it as a loss center ? Doesn't that mean they are going to sell their internet service below cost to run AOL out of business, just as they did Netscape with their browser ? Is the DOJ paying attention ?
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
If the price war ends in a monopoly, or an oligarchy of limited choices, that is bad for the consumer, as ultimately prices will go up and service will decrease.
You are right, though, as things stand now, this is merely competition, which is a good thing (even if the competitor is The Company We Love To Hate).
I also find the mergers and megamergers in the ISP world to be a concern. On the telecommunications side a few years ago we had a number of choices for leased lines (128k, T1, etc.). Not for connecting to the internet, but for connecting to the exchanges and other offices. After a number of large, well publicized mergers, our choices have diminished dramatically. As has the service. Lines that at one time took an hour to fix now take a day, and, alas, that particular company is still the best choice out of what has become a limited supply of bad choices. I fear the same thing may happen to our choices for internet connectivity, either through the 500 pound gorilla that is Microsoft, or through unrelated mergers and predatory pricing having little or nothing to do with Mr. Gates. These developments do bear close watching, regardless
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I think Ziff Davis should have to give away their magazine for free since they make all their money on spreading spin and propaganda...
Want it or not, I am now realizing that some form of regulation is necessary to force ISPs to support non-M$ machines... This and finding a way to stop M$ from investing in ISPs. Imagine that: having to force ISPs to return to the "on the internet, no one knows you are using a [insert non-windoze platform here]" days, imposing regulations to bring back platform-neutrality to the 'net!
Well, I think that's an easy answer. Microsoft just *forced* ISP's to buy alternative OS's. As in Microsoft saying "We are going to drive you out of business".
Think Pepsi. When they decided to get into the restaurant business, did that improve their contracts with competing businesses? What, it didn't? Why not? Why did they say, "Cool, Pepsi sells pizza, I'll sign a contract with them to sell Pepsi with my pizza." No, they probably thought, "Why would I want to depend on a company that's going to try to compete with me?"
Think of it another way. You have a company that sells to contractors. Home Depot. They then decide to go into the contracting business themselves. Now why would the contractor go to Home Depot when they know that Home Depot competes against them. That job they just lost probably was Home Depots. They'll go to another hardware company.
The first rule of thumb any MBA learns is "Never compete with your customers. There's no quicker way to lose good clients to the compeitition.
When an ISP now needs to upgrade their servers, do you think they are goig to be interested in Microsoft products anymore? Not on their life. Why buy from a company who's intent is to make them unprofitable? There are many better choices out there, and they keep looking better and better, too.
Ah, here we sit trying to compete against the 6 ton sloth, when the 6 ton sloth's greatest enemy is ... itself. We want have to do anything to combat Microsoft deceptive marketing, they're handling that just fins.
-BrentI would have to say, dealing with ISP's, you get what you pay for. If MS wants to offer Free net' access, let them. The service will turn to crap. (Like it already isn't) Local ISP's have always been better than national ISP's, and always will.
ISPs have been rather ready and willing to take down sites at the slightest hint of a lawsuit.
I think this has a lot less to do with the number of choices available. The law isn't clear in the area of ISP liability and no company wants to be a test case. Lawsuits cost a lot of money.
M$ can pull on AOL, what AOL did to to M$ with the IM protocol. In Windows M$ could release a service pack that disables the AOL Adapter for dial up. In Win2k they could eliminate support for the AOL adapter completely.
2-3 years ago Netscape had the lions share of the browser market. IE now has it because of M$ optimizing windows to work better with it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Screw loyalty???? That's got to be the most innane statement I've heard in a long time. Loyalty is what drives businesses.... There's a small video store in my town. They carry less movies and charge about the same as the Blockbuster that opened down the street. I still go to my local place due to a sense of "loyalty." Loyalty is what lets a business thrive.
Free internet acess works in the UK because everyone has to pay the phone companies acceess charges for local calls. A portion of this money gets rolled back to the ISP. It just can't work here, free internet access, no strings attatched. Not even by the ISP inserting a banner advertisment at the top of each page... There's no assurance a user has images turned on, is using http (as opposed to ftp, etc...).
Flamebait:
What will you pay money for?
Not the OS (Linux) - the argument goes that the money distributing linux will be from value added services.
Not for internet service - for some reason that should be free, too... and that's for a "value added service", in that they provided easy to access content, software, and a relative sense of "security" for the newbie. It's not targetted (nor even accessible, so far as i can to) for linux users.
MSN Web Communities
Anyone want to open up the /. community, and have Everybody load up on a free 30 megabytes, courtesy of MSN.
Analog dial-up access will never be out. There is so much market saturation of regular analog modems that it will be a decade before we see a real decline. Analog access can be used from just about anywhere with a phone line, xDSL has a limited range, and cable needs a coaxial cable, which not everyone has. ISDN was never much of a contender, but it still is a little more robust then DSL at least for distance.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
At the turn of this century we're seeing a repeat of what happened at the turn of the last century. Giant megalithic corporations scurrying to get the next consumer and make all the money they can without any regard for people. AOL and Microsoft figure they are so needed by consumers that they can do anything they want and get away with it. Sure free internet access look nice...until you see where it's coming from. Internet Explorer was free too but it made you commit to using it as your default browser and mail client ect. ad nausium. AOL is doing the same thing by assuming they are so important to you or I that they can take over Joe User's desktop. This is helping no one, free access just means they found a different way to get money out of you, whether you realize it or not.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
gee I am so glad that the DOJ is on top of things. (LOL). THis just goes to show you that they do anything to put there competition out of business. ANYTHING. And the DOJ is doing nothing about them. Somoen needs to crack and destroy there server soon.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Sorry, but the reason that those once-huge products lost out isn't because Microsoft owns the desktop. It's because the Microsoft products were better.
So, in all those cases (except dBase IV which I don't know about, and Java, which doesn't really apply here, nor has it's market been captured by Microsoft), Microsoft won by producing better software. That's how the market is supposed to work, kids. Of course, it's important to have the marketing muscle to be able to tell customers why they should be using your product instead of the competition. But take away the marketing and IE 5 is still the best browser, Excel is still the best spreadsheet, and so on. We're not talking voodoo here.
That's also why AOL has remained on top even though MSN's been gunning for it for years, and even though Microsoft has owned the desktop for years: I haven't heard (at least I can't remember hearing) any arguments as to why I should want to choose MSN over AOL (I don't use either of them). I'm no AOL fan, but for the segment of the market that they target, they're doing a damn good job.
But if they slip up, you better believe that MSN will be there to take advantage of it -- and if they make the best product, more power to 'em.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
i want eWorld back
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I feel that you are correct. I certainly disapprove. But you were mentioning that nobody is doing anything about this. Do you have any suggestions? I find myself to be fresh out.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, it'd be more like having the local phone company start a pizza place and send out free phones to everyone in town with a special button that would directly dial the phone company's pizza place. Sure, you _could_ dial another place, but it's _easy_ to get a BellCo Pizza. Plus, the phone company makes oodles of money from other revenue sources, so it's able to give away BellCo Pizzas.
In a nutshell, that's what happened to Netscape.
Could MS do that to AOL? Possibly. Would the US Gov't sue to try to stop it? Almost certainly.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
TV and radio _never_ functioned that way. Networks have been selling content to affiliates since the dawn of broadcasting. Now some affiliates want networks to pay THEM to cary some shows and compensate them for advertising time. The network system is starting to break down.
As far as something that is funded solely by advertising.. I can think of plenty of internet sites, as well as all those magazines that I can get for free at the super market or local club.
Which _profitable_ WWW sites are soley advertiser funded? The sites making money are Yahoo (which gets money a billion different ways, including advertising), various porn sites (which charge subscription fees), gambling sites (collect from the games), other subscription sites (WSJ), and sites either selling things or auctioning things (and the auction sites skim off the price of the items sold). Advertiser-only sites don't make money.
And saying that an advertising circular is advertising-funded is a tautology. It's like saying a billboard is advertising-funded.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Just who in the hell do Case & Gates think they are, anyway? Some sort of dieties of the computer world? Just the mere notion that they think they can be *it* when it comes to internet access....I shake my head in disbelief.
Microsoft thinks it's anti-trust troubles are just about over...if they (or AOL for that matter) started to take over in the manner they described, putting countless local ma-n-pa ISP's out of business, I would *hope* the government would step in.
The sad part is it will probably happen like this. Big companies will take control of the access points to the internet, just like they've taken control of the access points to the telephone system, the cable Tv systems, etc. etc. Anyone thinking of starting an ISP should probably think twice.
Anyone know when internet2 will start going public?
Blech. Signatures.
The article is indeed from the Wall Street Journal. The zdnet article has the WSJIE logo at the top, and the reporters are identified as WSJ reporters. Since the WSJ is given appropriate credit, I don't seem any problem with plagiarism.
Microsoft only has to offer free internet service long enough to kill all competition. They can afford to do that.
photosMy Photostream
Anyone who charges $21.95/month is bound to get crushed. And some bozo AOL spokesperson said "It's all about loyalty" or something to that end. Screw loyalty! That is the stupidest business tactic I have ever heard! Loyalty only promotes inefficency. If we were all "loyal" to Linux then there would be no reason for it to improve. We use it because it's great and keeps getting greater. AOL had best do the same.
Corndog
That is not loyalty you are talking about. I am using the word as it is defined. You stick with your ISP because they are good, and not to be "one of the gang." That is being a follower. You use your ISP, and would stick with your ISP because you think they would get better. People stick with Linux because they think it will get better, is better, or are immature and hate Microsoft. If development stopped, and Linux went to hell, everyone but the fools would stop and go to something better, like Hurd (if Linux sucked, that is). That's all I was saying. I think people don't understand loyalty.
Corndog
I'm usually pretty cynical and pessimistic about the state of things, but I'm in a good mood today, so here it goes.
MS has historically been FAR behind in these types of things.
TCP/IP stack? Whats that?
File sharing? Whats that?
E-mail? Whats that?
Internet? Whats that?
Remote Admin? Whats that?
Eventually they bring them to the masses, but its usually 5 years or so too late. Sure they dominate the market, but it's not the type of market that Linux or Unix is in. It's mom and pop. It's the Luddite/curmudgeon who isn't interested in the latest shiny technology.
By the time MS figures out how to build a successful ISP (and remember, this is their SECOND try), most of the *nix elitest guru types will have already installed a DSL or T1 in their home office. The rest will be college students on dorm room ethernet connections. It is very unlikely that MS will have any impact on these installations, no matter what "added value" they put on their 56k dialup POPs.
Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve ALL tried this, and they couldn't even compete with bare bones ISP that were doing pure PPP with no extra gimmicks for TWICE the cost.
You have got to be kidding. The DOJ will be all over this in front of a judge faster than T3. Microsoft seems to be working in some sort of fantasy world where they think they can take one monmopoly position and leverage it across the entire US economy. Well, I sure hope that the DOJ carves them up into little pieces (i.e. splits up Microsoft). This is flat out absurd.
It seems to me that there are just too many behemouth companies with their eye on complete control of the internet. AOL, Microsoft and AT&T being the most obvious at this point.
I am afraid that the only way that this is going to be prevented is through government regulation.
Between cable-modems and xDSL, analog Internet access is on its way out. Our concerns about Internet access being dominated by carrier monopolies or oligopolies should be directed at the broadband providers.
In any case, for the rest of the transition period, while analog is still the predominant Internet access method, the local phone carriers still have their ISPs. If anyone else can survive making their dialup access a loss leader, it's the baby Bells. Some competition is better than none.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Free Internet Access from Microsoft? There has to be a catch. Here's one senario:
"Download MS Internet Exlporer 2001 with Dialup Networking Special Edition featuring XPPP protocol support! Fully integrated with Microsoft Internet Access! Absolutely Free!!"
What you ask is XPPP? That would be the eXtended Point to Point Protocol, the "comodity" PPP embraced, extended and bastardized such that the only client capable of supporting it is the Microsoft-provided one. Guess what else? Microsoft only provides it for Windoze. Maybe MacOS. Linux, BeOS, Amiga, OS/2 can forget about it.
Don't even get me started on blocked websites, newsgroups, the posibilities are endless. No way do I want any one company with that much control over what information I can or can't access. I'll support my mom-and-pop hometown ISP until they go under, then I'll just have to get my own T1.
kz
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
I'd be happy to see MS and AOL duke it out just as long as they want. Let them tear each other apart. However, this MS plan to gain control of the Internet access market could indirectly hurt Linux.
I happen to work for a small, local ISP. It is amazing how many inexperinced users choose IE over Netscape, simply because it's on their desktop. Some customers complain about our access rate (which is about $15 per month). If Windows came prepackaged with a $9.95 per month, or even free Internet access service, you'd better believe that local ISPs will be in big trouble.
If a MS-only access service becomes the norm, it will be extremely tough to get users to migrate to Linux. I can (hopefully not) forsee a time when non-proprietary ISPs will exist only in major population areas. You can bet that MS will see this as an opportunity to kill Linux. By running ISPs out of business, then only supporting Windows for Internet connections, MS will be cutting into the heart of Linux. The OS grew up, and now thrives on the Internet. Without acces in many areas, Linux could be tremendously hurt.
Don't underestimate the power of something that's free, or nearly free. I (and I'll bet many others as well) came to Linux initially because it is free.
We never had this problem with AOL, because at $20 a month, local ISPs can offer a better price. How do you under sell a free service? Linux community, beware.
Josh
AOL should accelerate the adoption of free OSS software. If MS goes after AOL's revenue stream with free Internet services, AOL has to respond to MS where it hurts them -> free software. That is MS's primary business -> that's where they are vulnerable.
I'm starting to think that way to go here is co-op ISPs. Find the other geeks in your community and pool your resources to get a T1 or whatever.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
The same thing always happens in a price war. Companies get killed and prices go down for the consumer. I fail to see how this could possibly be a bad thing.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
That one was invented by Rockefeller/Standard Oil, like, a long time ago. Bill just "embraced and extended" it.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
They support mac too
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
Yeah, but I think that an underground culture will always exist in the computer world. Even if everything goes broad band commercially and is controlled by a few large companies. There will still be a subculture that remains hidden and entices the young will-be-coders to experiment and learn. It's just part of the human spirit to test the outer boundaries of what is possible, that will never die. I think actually beyond the facade of normalcy that is about ensue that there will be a great uprising among the youth once information is available at the click of a mouse. More and more people will begin to see the truth about the government, and the media. I think letting the corporations fund this and monopolizing it is just a cross we must bear. I mean it's such an expensive thing. But once it exists boy, there will be no stopping us!
There's a simple reason: AOL's only _real_ advantage is content. They have special AOL-only chat, forums, and so on, and (you have to give them credit) make the Net simpler (some would say *too* simple).
But what about MS? Suppose they brought all their content to bear. They have _tons_ that they can marshal: MSNBC, ZDnet, Bloomberg, and so on, since MS has been investing in other companies like crazy. Add to that the fact that MS has broadband access coming up (where AOL is lagging), and you have a serious threat where MSN failed before--especially if they are serious about offering it for free. Imagine--preinstalled on all Windows computers, and free...can anyone say "Explorer vs. Netscape"?
Of course, MS could still fall flat--like by having the whole thing run on NT, in which case it's MS-Offline--but they could really hurt AOL, since they _can_ go on forever losing money on MSN Junior--remember, this is the company that scratches its armpit and earns another billion on the stock market.
I'm no fan of AOL, but they are the only real hope of taking down MS in the near future IMHO (Linux is getting there in the server market, but has some ways to go in the desktop market). Even AOL's putative alliances with Sun, Netscape and Apple probably won't help--none of them have the financial clout that MS does.
Sad story...I'll continue using my Mac and Linux until I get run over by a dump truck, but there are lots of PHBs and know-nothing users willing to go along with MS's garbage virtually in perpetuity...*sigh*
Anyone is free to prove me wrong. I'd be _delighted_ to be wrong on this one. :-)
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
I predict that Microsoft will soon bundle instant messaging into their OS. They will "integrate" it and claim that it is inseparable from the operating system. It will use Microsoft's servers and use closed standards which are only supported on Windows (oh, and Macintosh so they arn't labled as a monopoly). If, through some miracle, they do use an "open standard" it will be Microsoft's interpretation which will differ significantly from the official standard with extensions like marquee and Active X.
As for the Internet service, does "cutting off the air supply" ring a bell? By paying computer retailers $400 per PC if the customer buys 3 years of MSN will effectively kill the ISP business with the exceptions being ADSL and cable modem, where Microsoft is already making large investments.
Microsoft now sees AOL as public enemy #1 much like they saw Netscape. Now expect to see Microsoft steamroll over AOL and everyone else by leveraging their OS dominance to control the Internet.
I guess they havn't noticed the DOJ trial or else they're betting on the Republicans winning the White House and are already making campaign contributions to that effect. After all, what's good for big business is good for the consumer, right?
Anyone remember the old Standard Oil? It's happening all over again, except now instead of controlling the gas stations they also control the roads and the cars as well.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue, they will control the entire Internet. They will pay people to use MSN which will use Microsoft servers. Since Microsoft will control all the servers, they will control advertizing and can and will lock out possible competitors. Microsoft will evolve IM to try and kill Email as it currently works by integrating it into the OS and adding bloated features like voice and video.
AOL, Mindspring, Earthlink, Sprint, Pacbell, etc. will all get out of the ISP business since they cannot afford to offer 3 years of service at a loss. (3 years @ $10 = $360 - $400/PC - overhead costs = -$40+ per user)
All MS has to do is jack up the prices on their next version of the OS a bit and up the licensing fees for their office and development products.
2003: All IM traffic passes through Microsoft. For the CIA/FBI, life is easy. All major ISPs and most regional ISPs have shut their doors. Microsoft has invested heavily in ADSL and bought out @Home and now has all of that traffic going through MSN.
2004: Microsoft creates a whole new plug-and-play protocol for accessing MSN which is some totally bastardized version of TCP/IP, something between NetBEUI and IPv6 plus a ton of complicated bloated features. Microsoft's automatic update feature upgrades everyone's computer to use the new protocol. The growing Linux community loses Internet access and dies a quick death. Apple survives only because MS ports their stuff (alabeit quite buggy) to the Macintosh to try and stave off the Justice Department, which they have little fear of due to their $500 million in soft money contributions to the Republican party which now has the White House.
2005: M.S. purchases Cisco to support their proprietary protocol all over the Internet. Upgrades IOS to support the new protocols. All routers need a 512MB flash upgrade and a 1GB RAM upgrade. The IETF has disbanded.
2006: Script kiddy discovers master back door password to Microsoft routers and servers is "crashw~2" and tears down the entier Internet.
All of the other script kiddies go through Microsoft's firewall and install the latest Back Orifice on Bill Gates' computer. All of Microsoft's backups are erased and all computers are re-flashed with a BIOS that refuses to load any Microsoft OS. Ironically, Linux, FreeBSD, and ancient versions of BEOS and OS/2 load just fine.
Microsoft's stock drops to $0.01/share as there are multiple class action suits with over 1,000,000,000 people affected. Bill Gates can kiss his Presidential race goodbye.
2007: Linus Torvalds enters the US Presidential race with Alan Cox as VP in the newly formed "Open Party". Other major Linux developers, which ran a backup network using POTS modems, run for other government positions. The slogan is "Open Standards and Open Source". The world economy is in ruins due to all of the world's networks crashing.
2008: Linus wins by a landslide and the Open Party controls both houses of Congress
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Anyone remember the old Standard Oil? It's happening all over again, except now instead of controlling the gas stations they also control the roads and the cars as well.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue, they will control the entire Internet. They will pay people to use MSN which will use Microsoft servers. Since Microsoft will control all the servers, they will control advertizing and can and will lock out possible competitors. Microsoft will evolve IM to try and kill Email as it currently works by integrating it into the OS and adding bloated features like voice and video.
AOL, Mindspring, Earthlink, Sprint, Pacbell, etc. will all get out of the ISP business since they cannot afford to offer 3 years of service at a loss. (3 years @ $10 = $360 - $400/PC - overhead costs = -$40+ per user)
All MS has to do is jack up the prices on their next version of the OS a bit and up the licensing fees for their office and development products.
2003: All IM traffic passes through Microsoft. For the CIA/FBI, life is easy. All major ISPs and most regional ISPs have shut their doors. Microsoft has invested heavily in ADSL and bought out @Home and now has all of that traffic going through MSN.
2004: Microsoft creates a whole new plug-and-play protocol for accessing MSN which is some totally bastardized version of TCP/IP, something between NetBEUI and IPv6 plus a ton of complicated bloated features. Microsoft's automatic update feature upgrades everyone's computer to use the new protocol. The growing Linux community loses Internet access and dies a quick death. Apple survives only because MS ports their stuff (alabeit quite buggy) to the Macintosh to try and stave off the Justice Department, which they have little fear of due to their $500 million in soft money contributions to the Republican party which now has the White House.
2005: M.S. purchases Cisco to support their proprietary protocol all over the Internet. Upgrades IOS to support the new protocols. All routers need a 512MB flash upgrade and a 1GB RAM upgrade. The IETF has disbanded.
2006: Script kiddy discovers master back door password to Microsoft routers and servers is "crashw~2" and tears down the entier Internet.
All of the other script kiddies go through Microsoft's firewall and install the latest Back Orifice on Bill Gates' computer. All of Microsoft's backups are erased and all computers are re-flashed with a BIOS that refuses to load any Microsoft OS. Ironically, Linux, FreeBSD, and ancient versions of BEOS and OS/2 load just fine.
Microsoft's stock drops to $0.01/share as there are multiple class action suits with over 1,000,000,000 people affected. Bill Gates can kiss his Presidential race goodbye.
2007: Linus Torvalds enters the US Presidential race with Alan Cox as VP in the newly formed "Open Party". Other major Linux developers, which ran a backup network using POTS modems, run for other government positions. The slogan is "Open Standards and Open Source". The world economy is in ruins due to all of the world's networks crashing.
2008: Linus wins by a landslide and the Open Party controls both houses of Congress
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I believe AT&T will be forced to open up access on tthe cable to other ISPs. As a current TCI/AT&T @Home user I hope this happens, since currently @Home is home of lost packets. It's gotten to the point where people in my city have organized against TCI @Home and dragged the city council into the fray. The city council will soon require a minimum set of standards for @Home due to the lousy performance and support of AT&T/TCI@Home. This is an ISP that can't keep their mail servers running and makes my 28.8 modem often look fast.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Didn't MS say they next target were the ISP's with the next verison of Exchange?
If they sign on windows people, they could easily only allow exchange clients, and drop POP3/SMTP, as the "exchange client is more featured" Then between MS' ISPs, set up advanced features, to add to the "fax effect"
After web browsing, email is by far the next most popular, and I'd hate to see another potential standard embrace,extend and extinguish set in here. And the potential for "lock-in" for email is higher than for a browser - it's easier to transfer your favourites to bookmarks, than convert your local email database to another one. Instant messaging is also another client with significant lock-in effects, which they are realising. The browser was just the beginning.
Over all, MS going into the ISP market, brings a whole new meaning for the marketing phrase "Where do you want to go today?"
I'm worried.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
...was near the end. An AOL executive claiming that people stick with AOL for the value of the service, not because of anything else.
I don't know about anyone else, but the last time I used AgentOfLucifer at a friend's house, a 56K connection was slower than my local 33K connection and the speeds were very inconsistent. That seemed to be the case whenever I see AOL being used. I don't call that value. Especially since you can't get an e-mail without numbers in it, they sell your e-mails to spammers, and they saturate you with more advertisements than any other area of the internet I've ever seen. The interface of AOL is pure and simple designed to get you to spend money, not really to get you onto the internet.
I work at a Computer Store in Redmond, and we're seeing the first effects of M$'s plan right now. Starting Friday, M$ is going to give us $400 for every computer we sell, *if* we also sign up the customer for 3 years of MSN with the sale. Our cheapest computer is currently $499, with a $400 system being worked on. This means, within a few weeks, we'll be offering completely free computers-- WITHOUT 24/7 advertisements-- just standard MSN. We're expecting sales to go up dramatically as a result of this promotion.
Needless to say, I've already given them my two weeks notice...
Microsoft vs. AOL? Is it possible for them BOTH to lose?
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
NetZero is good. The current version offer up to 8-10 phone line in new yorks area. I'm currently using prodigy for the two month free service. I'm so unimpressive with this paid ISP.
The speed is absolute the same; the phone lines has only one that supports 56k. Granted it doesn't have the ad square that Netzero have and can last up to 4 hour for newsgroup download, but I'm not going to pay for it for 20 bucks. I can do much more with cable tv. I can accept the Ad like I do with network tv as far as it doesn't flash. The moment it flashs I put a paper on my monitor and ignore it all together.
cy
IT is extremely scary that MS and AOL think that they can destroy the independent ISP market. THe loss of choice is amazing. With only a few gateway providers, content can easily be filterred, and controlled. Which is a dream for the US govt and censorship advocates.
It would be the end of the Internet as a global marketplace for ideas, and the beginning of a proprietary entertainment network.
I will support my local ISP's throughout this, as i enjoy my freedom to go where i want, see what i want, and read the information that i feel i should. I do not like the concept of anyone being in a position to be able to tell me what i can or can not read/see, and if there is an oligarchy, the prociders will be in exactly this position.
... hi bingo
I find it hard to believe that anyone fails to see that when M$ sticks their dirty hands into any business, it'll end up hurting the consumer community in the long run. Day by day, this world is starting to look more like the one represented in Apple's famous "1984" commercial. As M$ takes over every conceivable electronic, consumer, television, and information media business, it will resemble the "Big Brother" voice from the commercial, speaking its rules to the massive crowds of gray (beige) users (who are in some kind of slave-like trance). Someone or a number of companies need to come to the rescue (like the Apple woman who invades the commercial and saves the day) before M$ rules everything, including your right to choose.
-----
Linux user: if (nt == unstable) { switchTo.linux() }
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Bundle it with the OS.. and give it away for free.
We haven't seen this before. Those guys up in redmond must work pretty hard to come up with innovations like that.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
yes, ZD's magazines are all super-pro-MS bullshit that swim in deep ignorance. And they have so many of them! It's horrible.
Juln
When AOL bought Netscape they also got a fist full of Redhat. This is the beginning of a true war. The next step, from my Window(TM), is an attack by AOL into Microsoft's territory: Operating Systems. AOL will distribute a copy of Redhat Linux (With a really dumbed down install, easy as can be) along with AOL client for Linux to everyone with a Snail Mail box. AOL 5.0 could very well be the transition from Windows to Linux as millions of AOL users upgrade their AOL client and are asked if they would like to try Linux instead of Windows. All AOL has to do now is partner with a good Office Suite maker (Corel, Stardivision, IBM?) and use their influence/pockets to help projects like Loki. ...or am I insane?
Hey all,
Short but sweet :
Microsoft tried with MSN and -lets face it- failed miserably. But hey, that doesn't matter, because we're Microsoft and I'm sure if we chuck some more money at the problem it will soon go away...
Hey all,
Just for all the transatlantic people reading this I would like to point out that the UK has had free internet access for quite a while now, and it does work. Well.
I have a paid account with Demon Internet and a free one from the largest free isp, Freeserve. Sometimes Demon is faster, sometimes Freeserver, but c'est la vie.
Currently, everyone is setting up free access... even football teams...
The only problem is that here we have to pay for all our phone bills and a local call comes in at 5p/min peak, 1.5p/min off-peak... not much but if you're a heavy user it can add up.
Now, if I were Microsoft, wouldn't an 0800 advert-funded isp be the way to go ahed ? I know that no matter how fast/slow the connection, I would be willing to leave a robot downloading pages overnight...
So, a challenge for Microsoft perhaps. Give us freephone access to the internet along with a free acount and we'll start to like you more. Fair ? Well maybe we can start listening to what you say every once in a while... just maybe.
Maybe I'm not getting it, but...
/or standardized on one IETF protocol.
SURE it would be GREAT if AOL and MS and everybody elsed opened up all their source and protocols and
BUT...Isn't using AIM actually usage of the AOL network?? I can't really stand AOL like the next guy, BUT...they DID put a lot of MONEY and TIME into developing their network. That has to count for something, right? MS can't just exploit their service for nothing. Why can't I use my neighbor's idle bandwidth when he's online?? Why can't I make a cell phone call to my friend whenever I want, but only he has to pay? Sure it would be lovely if everybody opened up and got along, but let's not just villianize AOL. They have legitimate commercial responsibility (they have to service their customers with their network), and finite network capability.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
It's not pop it's coke you yankee!
For my local ISP, however, sure. Yes, if they had terrible service and jerky, unhelpful employees, I wouldn't feel so loyal. But then they don't. And if the service started to slip, I'd hang in for a while--out of loyalty--and try to convince them to improve it which might stand a chance of keeping it better for everyone. I think an element of that kind of loyalty is part of what makes Linux go on improving. People want to stay with it and make it better, not dump it for something else.
Microsoft looks like they will try yet again to offer middle of the road quality for a price that undercuts existing competitors.
However, their logic is a bit flawed. The article stated that this Internet venture was funded to protect the core software cash flow. This could be rationalized in a few ways.
Not saying that all or any of these will work, but they're worth talking about. As far as the custom content goes, hasn't Microsoft already tried that and failed? (Slate - now free?).
Price discounting can't go too deep, otherwise it also becomes a subsidized activity, and the whole thing collapses back on strategy one, using the free connection to drive Windows sales.
That can draw in quite a few people, but many people still pay for premium TV channels when broadcast is available. Somewhat of a mixed analogy, being a comparison of service to content, but if you equate using Windows to annoying TV commercials then the point is in there.
Stated differently, people that want a good steak won't stop wanting a good steak just because there are free, overcooked, greaseburgers just waiting to be picked up out of the warming tray.
Any ISP, AOL or tiny, that serves up real value can survive this.
I agree. Imagine a cable local loop where the service was free? It'd be a lovely 28.8k modem attached to the Ethernet NIC since the loop would be so clogged. I'd be willing to pay to upgrade to a limited local loop where there'd be no more, than, say, 50 users. DSL is more interesting since the topology is different. The bottle neck would be moved to the providers network. Imagine a free DSL service?
AOL is the most sorry isp in the business. Email addresses change all of the time. AIM will run on any service. MSN (even though it is sorry as well) allows direct access to the internet without going through their own idiodic program. Anything is better than aol.
Call me paranoid (I do), but you're missing the real goal behind MS draining all the profits out of ISPs.
The target isn't AOL, it's Linux (and *BSD).
ISPs are the prime revenue base for Linux vendors, and the prime source of jobs for skilled Linux developers and admins. The death of ISPs (although still far from certain) would be a significant blow to the Linux community, wouldn't it?
--LinuxParanoid
P.S. So Linux had better keep extending its value into corporate environments...
NetZero has already completed this free Internet thingy. Their service is good. They cover all states with Local access. They steal a bit of bandwidth for Advt. - Fine by me; every webpage I load, does than (incl. slashdot). Has everyone abandoned their resp. service providers and have jumped onto the NetZero bandwagon. Nope. AOL is correct. Its community approach is formidable. Besides all these (including AOL) are strict Window$/Mac solutions. Netzero is Java based. So theoretically they should be Linux capable but I havent tried.
Next - how will M$ get a break here ? The combination of Cable/ADSL based free Internet Access. Now that would be an interesting proposition. Imagine 640K to 1Mbs internet access and all you have to do is buy some trash every year for 10 to 50 bucks from a microsoft approved junk seller. I feel the rush to MS OSes would be dwarfed by this rush. This will be model that every country will try to emulate. M$ will claim that this promotes trade and blah blah blah etc. to shut up DC and monopolize internet access. Coutesy AT&T. What do you think M$ has been doing the past 6 months. They dont intend to provide this "free" thing, thru regular medium(POTS). If they did, Bill might as well throw the billions he invested in Cable companies in the bin.
It is AT&T that owns over 60% of the cable lines in N. America.
Comcast and Paul Allen own the majority of the remaining lines.
As far as keeping the net completely free and open? I am not so sure I am for that. If AT&T, had not aken the initiative and balls to put up over 100 billion dollars down in order to start rolling out broadband technology, I do not know if it ever would have happened.
Now, not only do we have a chance of getting access to cable modems thanks to AT&T, but the regional bells have finally started to get off their asses to offer as DSL as well.
If the big companies do not front the cash... we would be stuck in 56.6k netherworld of internet connections.
If the cable modems are forced to be open, what is the incentive for AT&T to ever upgrade their technologies? There is none... because they would be guranteed a profit just by sitting on their asses.
So I am thrilled that we are finally seeing an aggressive push by the larger companies to move into a broadband infrastructure. If the small ISP's get left behind... so be it, it happens to every new technology. Right now, there are enough options out there where microsoft, AT&T or AOL are not going to have complete control. There is going to be a lot of competition AND great incentives to roll out greater technologies.
Having a bunch of tiny ISP's running around through our phone lines does not aid progression much at all. This market is starting to mature, and there will be survivors, but unfortunately, more fatalities.
Granted, I was referring to the "old" TV Network.
But these functioned very well for a long time on mere advertising revenues. It would be *possible* for the ISP's to go in this direction.
Though I do not really envision this happening, I do see prices coming down drastically, and like the old TV Networks (and modern, as you pointed out), they will have to rely on other means to make a profit (whether that is advertisements, affiliations or selling other products).
I think it could become very much like Cable TV however as well. With a simple tier system. You want a connection and an e-mail account? OK, that's free. You want access to the web? Pay some. You want no advertisements, and a bunch of other neatO things (like the movie channels)? Pay more.
I also think of gas stations. They make almost nothing on selling gas to you. What they depend on is you hopping in to by cigs and pop. In any event, I think the ISP's will no longer be able to depend on the revenues from mere connection fees.
As far as something that is funded solely by advertising.. I can think of plenty of internet sites, as well as all those magazines that I can get for free at the super market or local club.
At leat there is a happy ending :)
At some point in the future, Microsoft is going to get broken up... there is no denying it.
You are neglecting to consider AT&T's clout in the cable industry however. AT&T also has the majority stake in @Home and Road Runner. They are Microsoft's AND AOL's worst enemy.
Of the sites you mentioned above, only porn and gambling sites actually profit. Yahoo barely does, and Ebay, Amazon.com, Buy.com and all the others have never come close to making a profit.
But, they do make money (as in revenues). In that line, Egreetings makes money and Zeronet make money... more when they gave their services away for free, than when they were charging.
I am not talking about an advertising circular, I am talking about things like Music Revue and other magazines that have full-time employees, profit and give their mahazines away for free. There is a lot of content, but a shit load of advertisements. I see no similarities to a billboard (an online, or a roadside)!?
You must commit to a certain level of purchasing from MSN advertisers. Once again proving there is no free lunch.
Lemmie start by saying that I am a bit of a contradiction. I am a Tech Support Rep, and I use AOL. I wouldn't, except that my family pays for it and I get it for free. I tried NetZero, hated it. If I had the money, I'd grab a cable modem and service for it, but alas, I do not. What scares me is that now that I have used AOl for about a year, it would be difficult to leave. I have to notify several AOL friends, reapply to 4 mailing lists (the addresses I know not), and then still get a hold of AIM so I can message my AOL friends that refuse to get ICQ...
It's more effort than I want to shell out at this point in my slacker existance. As for an M$ intenet services, I have chills.... An ISP for the braindead among us...
Diji
"I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"
If this comes through, and opens the door for every dial-up ISP beingthen I will be pretty mad. I just signed up for a special deal with BigNet available to Detroit Lions season ticket orders. I thoght it was a good deal $150 for 2 years of access!! I mean since I conceded that I'm in cable/ADSL hell, I figured I'd get the best dial-up deal and I thought this was it, I mean this is $6.25/month. Until today I had never seen a deal this good except for NetZero
Well this is no big deal. This is a "free PC" not a free ISP and this is old news. M$ isn't the first to do this and they won't be the last. This won't hurt AOL or Linux. Linux PCs will always be cheaper than Windows PCs.
Yes we will all benefit from cheap internet prices for now. But what about when AOL and the small ISPs go down? Without any competition, Microfrost can charge us whatever they please and make incredible profits. Don't forget that AOL also owns netscape and netscape owns mozilla(excuse me if im wrong about that part) and if AOL goes down so does Netscape. With Netscape out of the way Microsoft can expand further into it's internet browser market pushing their revenues even further. This however will not be enough for Microfrost though. Ever heard of propaganda??? Why not use the largest gateway to the internet to promote it's buggy OS's and de-mote Linux, freeBSD and other superior OS's through illegitamate Mindcraft-Like Benchmarks??
Additionally what will become of ICQ?? AOL now own's ICQ so will ICQ survive without AOL?? Unlikely.
As you can see, the seemingly "harmless" act of Microfrost giving out free internet access is just part of Microfrost's strategy to take over the Internet Browser Market as well as the ISP Market and protect it's interest in the OS market by propagating the users of it's cheap or even free internet service.
I do not think it is going to be very long before ISP's *have* to offer free connections, and need to make their money elsewhere (through advertisements, online stores, etc.).
While you might be right for most ISP's, I for one (and probably many others) would be more than willing to pay a fair price for a "premium" ISP that offers good service without all the ads. There should be enough of a market that at least some will survive.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Actually, it's exactly _unlike_ TV stations. TV broadcasts were free in the US at the beginning. Now cable TV (people paying at least $20/month) is in something like 80% of US homes. DSS and other systems are on the rise, too. The president of NBC recently floated the idea of making NBC a cable station, as a way to get back at affiliates.
Besides the premium movie channels (which cost even more money/month), there is plenty of advertising on cable networks, because advertising alone isn't going to pay the bills. Broadcast networks get money from affiliates (and some get money from producing shows, like Fox, WB, and UPN. ABC, CBS, and NBC have some restrictions placed on them by the FCC. They might have been lifted recently, though). Newspapers and magazines resell their content and some own other media outlets (For example, The Washington Post Company owns Newsweek and several cable companies under the name CableOne). I can't think of a single example of a media outlet which is funded soley by advertising.
If anything, internet access is going to be like any utility, not like a TV network. There's no free electricity, no free water, no free phone service, and free TV is going the way of the dinosaur. Why would there be free internet access ?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Have you ever wondered why people buy Kleenex instead of Puffs facial tissues? It's the same reason that people use AOL, familiarity. Let me illistrate with a real story:
In my effors to fund my education I work for the school tech support. Our school has free 56K dialup access. Our outgoing phone lines still hardly keep up at night with outgoing AOL users dialing in. They pay the money when they have faster, more reliable, commercial free access with tech support. It gets worse. When I go around installing 10/T network cards in fellow students computers I get people who still want to be able to dial out to AOL, dual T1s for free vs AOL 33.6 for a monthly fee and they choose AOL. I am nice enough to show them how they can be connected to AOL through our dual t1s and it is faster (after I fail to try to tell them AOL is evil) and they pay a smaller monthly fee.
If Microsoft offers dual T1 lines to everyone's home for free and sends real people out to support it they will still lose. AOL is unstoppable. Those disk wars they had a few years back paid off. They have a loyal (albiet ignorant) customer base. The only way to defeat AOL would be through education, and that's a whole new topic.
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
I do not think it is going to be very long before ISP's *have* to offer free connections, and need to make their money elsewhere (through advertisements, online stores, etc.).
So in a sense, These companies are becoming more and more like Television stations. Where you can get the entertainment, but you just have to put up with the advertisements/commercials. Broadband technologies will move it even further in this direction.
Most of the small ISP's will not make it, and this market will soon become an oligarchy, with a few huge companies trying to snare market share from the others through heavy advertising.