Slashdot Mirror
@HOME - AOL Deal Brewing?
xTg writes "News.com is reporting that Excite@HOME is restructuring its divisions to facilitate a merger with AOL. The most important question in my mind:
Does this mean I have to pay more for my cable modem now in exchange for AOL "premium" content? Does AOL like linux? blah." I don't care whether it's AOL or @home, as long as I can keep using Linux with my cable modem and they don't jack the price too hard. Whatever. We customers are nothing but pawns in all of this until the cable monopolies either get some solid competition or are forced to open their lines to outside ISPs. I second xTg's "blah."Update: 10/01 10:48 by H : Apparently, the deal is being denied by AT&T.
I beg to differ, but there's not much for the FCC to regulate here. If you don't like the deal you get with your cable modem provider, you always have the option of DSL or ISDN for high-speed internet access, provided the telcos have wired your area for those services. There's no way a smart telco is going to let @Home, RoadRunner, et al. wire an area without some competition. Look at the Bay Area where DSL prices dropped precipitously to equalize with cable modem prices once @Home moved in. Bad for consumers? I'm not convinced.
AOL has lost the Forced Access fight and they know it. The Portland and Broward County cases will be overturned because the FCC won't stand for balkanized regulation; they've said as much. So AOL is SOL unless they partner with a high-speed provider, be it a telco or cable provider. AOL has a substantial investment tied up in it's dialup infrastructure; the best way to preserve that investment is to spoil the deployment of cable modems via its bogus 'Open Access' campaign until it can cut a deal with a high-speed provider. Once that happens, watch how quickly the Open Access initiative evaporates.
Make no mistake, AOL has talked to AT&T/@Home before with no agreement and there's no reason to believe these talks will be any different. The ink is barely dry on the Excite merger; AOL would have to make a pretty compelling case to AT&T to undo it ('compelling case' == 'container ships filled with cash').
It looks like AT&T is holding all the cards - really, what does AOL have to offer?
This is not good for consumers! Competition is close to non-existant as is.. and the FCC who was supposed to encourage competition is naively allowing these mergers - which put us back in the same #$@! position we are right now with cable companies - one company per region! AAAggggghhh! It's enough to make me scream.
And ever since MediaNone merged with NotHome, my service has been creeping steadily downhill - it's impossible to play quake2 after 16:00 because the latency and packet loss is so bad it makes me want to cry. ;(
Come on! Write to the FCC, write to your local PUC... please please please don't let this happen!
--
Wow, a first post with some content!
Just my $0.02
Once again I'm baffled at how Linux _must_ be tied into every technological tidbit that appears on Slashdot. Someone really needs to conduct a psychological study on this.
I've used the service since it began (what..almost 3 years ago or something of that sort?) Here in Fremont CA. It started out great, then the bottlenecks started to appear...week long outages...clueless tech support..blah blah. It's a love/hate relationship, you hate the outages, love the speed. I'd love to switch to something that's more reliable but isn't more expensive. DSL doesn't fall into this category yet. Oh well... as to the AOL @home bit..well the internal @home page offers quite a lot of info, it makes quite an excellent portal already, I really don't know what @aol could add to it.
Price and performance are not the only negative aspects of ISP monopolies. American Online is famous for its "Family Oriented Content" id est Censorship. The one thing keeping the internet free of regulation currently is the myriad of means by which to gain access. Once that access is restricted to a small handful of enormous companies, the government (not to mention the companies themselves) can easily dictate what we can and cannot use the net for.
Additionally, once everyone is forced to go through the big ISPs for service, it will be very difficult for small service providers to break into the market. The price of wiring an area / number of people willing to go with smaller ISPs in that area ratio will be too small to justify any company from offering censorship free service.
It is imperative that we resist ISP monopolies!
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying." -- Woody Allen
Early this year, an eminent computer scientist gave a talk at the University of Washington, where he basically implied that the only broadband choices most people will have in the future are your local cable company and your local telephone company. When you think about it, this is pretty awful, as these entities (here in Seattle: TCI and USWest) are, at least in the United States, near the top of any consumer's list of most-hated corporations.
One of the few rays of hope comes from Tacoma, Washington (of all places). Like many communities in the Pacific Northwest, Tacoma's electric utility is owned by the city itself. A few years ago they were thinking of adding a feature that would require them rewiring most of their network (I think it was to install automatic meter readers), and someone got the bright idea, "Hey, what if we ran an extra cable into every home as well?" The original thought was to get some competition for TCI, which was, as usual, not delivering on its commitments, but the cable could be used for Internet Service as well. Their survey estimated that the cost would be not much more than the original project, and bound to pay for itself within a few years from ISP and Cable fees. They ran a public opinion poll at the same time, which basically found that (a) If they priced their cable service less than TCI, an overwhelming number of citizens would switch. (b) Even if the services were roughly equivalent, 50% would switch (presumably out of disgust with TCI).
So they're in the middle of the switch, and TCI has, predictably, fallen all over themselves upgrading Tacoma's networks. Anyway, I'd like to see more cities adopt this model. First, because I think in the future Internet access will be just as important a utility as our current utilities (phone, cable, water, etc.) and therefore worthy of an extra wire. Second, even if you don't think government-run utilities are a good idea (I think they are, but I won't get into that too much), we need more broadband options. Two isn't enough, especially two that are controlled by such dubious entities as your friendly neighborhood cable company and your friendly neighborhood phone company.
4) Some cable providers have stated commitments to add servers/switches if and when neighborhood bandwidth decreases to an unsatisfactory level. If a big player like AOL starts nipping at their market share, they should be even more willing to keep their customers happy.
I can vouch for this. We're experiencing T-1 saturation on our system. If it weren't for a provisioning problem with Bell Atlantic, we would have had a DS-3 line in place last month, just before the problem started. We should be up on it in a week or 2. @home was taking care of this before we knew we had a problem on the local level.
...Now if they could get their tech support right!
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
One almost has to assume that AOL's motive for this is to have a broadband channel for delivering AOL content. The content is, after all, the business that they are in. I doubt that simply becoming a broadband ISP, offering raw internet connectivity, is what they are really after.
So this brings up a lot of possibilities. Will they force AOL content down your throat if you want a cable modem? Will they start charging per hour rates as they do with dial-up access? Will they aggressively roll the service out to new areas? Will they maintain decent network capacity ? Who knows? It is certainly in their best interest to not alienate the existing non-newbie cable modem subscribers, but we all know that corporations occasionally act against their own best interest.
As far as xDSL being an option: Yes and No. Here in Des Moines, I had a cable modem that was costing me roughly $40 a month. I was seeing speeds in excess of what you would get with a T1. When I moved to a different part of town, they couldn't service my area, so I got DSL. Now I pay around $60 a month for 256kbps, and am stuck behind USWEST's firewall. That's right, no incoming connections at all. Slower access, more money, and I can't telnet to my house. Not a very appealing option. Yes, it's better than a modem, but that's about all I'll say for it.
Let's hope AOL doesn't screw up a good thing here.
There's a lot of competition right now. Cable isn't the only way of getting high speed access, and panicking about monopolies this early is a bit foolish. Remember: the market is not 'cable modems'. The market is question is 'high speed bandwidth'.
:)
:-)
Admittedly, cable companies are in a better position than are telephone companies, but they are rapidly pissing away their lead. While they have much better basic infrastructure for carrying large amounts of bandwidth, they are thinking cheap. A simple review of their membership agreement shows their real agenda: they want to sell you the service, but they don't want you to use it. Most activities that would use bandwidth in any sort of steady, consistent way are banned. Servers of any sort are not allowed on @home. You can't run a mail server OR a Quake server. If they catch you running one, they can shut you off, no questions asked, and no refunds.
Remember, their management is used to being 'a cable company'. They really have no clue what it means to be in the bandwidth market. Right now, their thinking appears to be, 'Okay, we'll sell you the bandwidth, but don't you dare use it." They are more in the position of the railroad barons of the 1800s, but few of them realize it.
Because of the noxious usage restrictions, I have avoided cablemodems, and have instead been signed up with Pacific Bell DSL since about February. Their AUP is very different: their whole attitude is different. The AUP is approximately: don't do illegal stuff.
The basic assumption is that you will USE the bandwidth you have. The rates are structured for that. I have 384K down/128K up guaranteed for $80/mo. (I pay for 5 IP addresses -- that costs $30/mo more.) That's a lot more than a cable modem, but note that I have no noxious restrictions on what I may run. I assume I could run an adult site if I wished, though of course doing that on a 128K upload restriction is silly.
I have had two major problem areas. My first was that, like clockwork, at 9PM most nights, my DSL would go offline. I ignored it for the first 2 or 3 weeks, because I figured they were doing maintenance -- because it was so regular, I assumed it was scheduled. However, when it went down and STAYED down for a day and I half, I called and squawked. They sent out a tech, who replaced the modem (I had an Alcatel A1000, rev A0: they replaced it with a B0) and all was well. I'm still not sure why it was always 9PM. Maybe someone was running a hair dryer close to the line or something.
The second problem was more recent. In the local area, the network was totally saturated. I have several coworkers also on PacBell DSL (at my recommendation primarily) and they were seeing the same thing. Our ping times had gone astronomical, and it was impossible to play action games online.
I finally got pissed and called and complained -- loudly -- and sent in traceroutes showing 300ms round trips starting 2 hops away. I didn't hear anything more from them -- but 2 weeks later the problems went away, and I'm back to about 60ms round trip times almost anyplace. I assume they upgraded an overloaded router. I wish they had called me, but at least they fixed it.
Overall, in my opinion, it's decent service. I don't expect 100% perfection at these rates, and I haven't gotten it either.
What I really like is that, while they guarantee only 384K down, I actually get close to 1.5Mbps down. My upload rate is definitely hard capped at 128K, however. If the service came in a 384/384 speed I'd be fat and happy. 128K up is a bit skinny, but it works okay. I would rather have a capped, reliable rate than a fast, unreliable one.
PacBell understands what it means to be in the bandwidth business. If you know what you are doing, you can call their technical center and deal with the same people you'd work with if you had a T1. If you're a networking professional, I suggest you consider them. If they realize you know what you're talking about, they'll work with you on a professional level.
For all these reasons, there's not really any reason to panic yet about cable modems being run by just a few companies, or even just one. Again, the market is 'bandwidth', not 'cable modems'. The phone companies are behind but not THAT much. Their better understanding of the bandwidth business gives them a real service advantage, at least in many cases.
The time to worry is when you see a single company owning large fractions of more than one competing type of service. The fact that AT&T is selling DSL now actually worries me. I do not believe AT&T is likely to be very competitive with itself, and I know they own a cable company. THAT, I think, is a problem.
In comparison, @Home buying Excite is nearly irrelevant, IMO.
I work for iMALL, Inc. which is soon to be acquired by Excite@Home. We just met today with Joe Kraus, one of the six co-founders of Excite. One of the questions asked was "Is there any truth to the rumor that Excite@Home is considering merging with AOL?"
The answer?
"No. I have no idea where this current rumor started. Well, I have some idea, but it really looks like they've recirculated old news about negotiations that were stopped three months before the rumor hit the papers."
He went on to say that yes, Excite@Home was talking with AOL months ago about putting portal links up on Excite pages for AOL/Netscape services. AOL thought Excite@Home's requirements were too high (a stock-sharing arrangement with AOL in exchange for the space) and the negotiations were dropped immediately (we're talking like 6 months ago).
The current restructuring is necessary to ease the burden on corporate heads and to bring divisions more inline with Excite@Home's underlying corporate philosophies and "the way things work" in the company. Things have been a bit uncomfortable since Excite's merger with @Home, but now the two complementary businesses (broadband access & search/portal business) support each other better, as well as make room for the upcoming merger with iMALL to serve as their e-commerce division.
I hope this has helped dispell this unfounded rumor.
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
In fact, I'm only paying $30/month instead of the normal price of $40/month because of AOL.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Recently in the Bay Area (CA), @Home advertised a promotion designed to attract existing AOL members. Basically, they waved all installation fees ($150) and then would pay your AOL bill until the year 2000. The way they did this is by having your change your $22/month AOL account to AOL's $10/month "BYOA" (Bring Your Own Access) deal where you keep your AOL account, but cannot dial into their AOLNet numbers. So, instead you connect to AOL over a TCP/IP connection...which is what @Home gives you.
They pay for your account by basically subtracting $10/month from your @Home bill. I signed up for this in July so, it will save me probably $150 + $60.
Anyway, this news comes too late for anyone in the Bay Area who missed the ads on late-night TV but my point is that @Home is already following AOL's plan of "AOL anywhere". AOL doesn't care how the AOL content gets to customers (be it satellite, cable, DSL, etc)...they just want to sell their proprietary content. I find it funny that about a month before this deal, AOL was lobbying for "open lines" so that AOL could have access to all of the cable modem customers. @Home wasn't interested in letting people choose AOL as their ISP. But then, a month later they offer this deal and basically tell people "you can have TWO ISPs and it's even cheaper!"
Technically, I now have eight e-mail address (five from AOL, three from @Home) and 20 MB of web space (10MB from AOL, 10MB from @Home). Yet, I used to be paying $22 + $40 and now I'm paying $30. I don't understand the business behind it, but I think that @Home really tipped its hands by offering this deal. They obviously lust after AOL's 16 million + members.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
From what I gleaned from the text of the article, AOL would control the Excite part of @home, and AT&T would control the ISP part. That's IF the deal happens at all, which probably won't be the case because Cox has veto power and is against the breakup of @home, which would be necessary for the deal to take place anyway.
Your Linux cable connection is not going to go away any time soon. Please read the article before getting paranoid.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
1) As far as the user is concerned, Cable Modems are ethernet. The only time you would have to connect to your provider is if you wanted to use their server services for email, web hosting, etc. My housemates and I have a Time Warner cable modem now (wired the house yadda yadda...) and have yet to do anything with their servers. DHCP and IP Masquesading take care of it all. No need to be force fed AOL's content, and you should be able to easilly leapfrog around any attempts at censorship.
2) AOL may be entering Broadband, but the cable companies and baby bells are the huge segment of the market. There's nothing to tick off the FCC about yet.
3) On the other hand, there's ISP down here in Texas that has a saying "If you've got AOL, you're SOL."
4) Some cable providers have stated commitments to add servers/switches if and when neighborhood bandwidth decreases to an unsatisfactory level. If a big player like AOL starts nipping at their market share, they should be even more willing to keep their customers happy.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
If there's one thing everyone agrees on, it's broadband is the future of the net.
While someone who's only broadband choice is their local cable company might believe there's no competition -- that's only because the cable company got there first and is now reaping the rewards of being first. While the greedy robber barons gouge you on price and skimp you on bandwidth, the phone companies are scrambling to roll out DSL and are moving at near light speed compared to their usual glacier mentalities. Don't rule out the wireless companies who see a way to get around the unreadable cost of laying wires to the home. Even the electric companies are trying to grab their slice of the pie.
The FCC is so very right to keep a relatively hands off approach because right now the free market is working exactly the way the free market should work, even if it's not moving as quickly as most of us would like.
For the record I use DSL because my cable company's Internet service was next to unusable. I wasn't the only one who made the switch and my neighbor is telling me that the Cable Company is finally getting around to upgrading its service. If they do a good enough job and the cost for bandwidth is a better value than DSL, I might even switch back.
In the future I will be able to choose wireless or maybe even the electric company, but I will be able to choose. So will you.
Assuming, of course, the FCC continues to stay as far away from this issue as is humanly possible.
I should buy aol stock. it would be like buying ms stock when 3.1 was released. it seemed big then, but it will only keep getting bigger. mm. yummm. money.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.