AOL May Be Forced To Open AIM 226
bearclaw writes: "Apparently, AOL might have to open up their IM protocal, according to a CNN article. The FCC seems to be concerned about their 90% IM dominance. Imagine that." This has been rumored several times before, with no action from the government. Meanwhile, AIM continues to dominate the scene.
Nope, it's used on the public internet (Score:2)
All communications over the internet intended for the general public should be free and open standards even if the exact source code of a given program isn't free. This goes for RealPlayer and Winblows Media Player as well as AIM and their ilk.
Just because the FCC, etc. has refused to require open communications standards in the past doesn't mean that they won't require it in the future. I think this is long overdue.
Today AIM, tomorrow WMP and RealPlayer!
Opening the AIM Can... (Score:1)
Sig protection fault, restart to display sig
Re:Let's see if this makes sense... (Score:1)
Someone already pointed out that the FCC looks at communications/media deals and has nothing to do with Microsoft.
But just as important is that the US gov't has much more leverage over a merger deal than over a non-merging company. Special laws give federal agencies abilities to challenge mergers in court. To avoid the costly court challenge, the companies (here AOL/Time) will negotiate with the Feds to come to terms on a deal.
REAL usage data please (Score:1)
I'm also on the download.com [cnet.com] mail list which gives out the top 10 downloads each week. ICQ has been in the top few each week for well over a year - AIM just doesn't feature. There's no way AIM is the most common.
Re:I've said it before, cops *love* IM - easy to t (Score:1)
Re:oh goody (Score:1)
Monopoly != illegal monopoly (Score:4)
Unless AOL has done this, then the DoJ has no power here.
Re:Rivals? (Score:1)
Re:Zzzzz... (Score:2)
---
AOL was definitely not the first IM (Score:1)
How much control is too much (Score:2)
We hate AOL, AOL sucks, but we want to use AIM (Score:1)
Seems like they invented it (just AIM, not the idea of messaging), they bankroll it, the promote, and they support it... and most everyone here hates them, so why not just steer the two trains away from each others paths? Or what happens if AOL is forced to open AIM to all comers, so they decide to "retaliate" by giving AOLer's push button access to IRC?
Won't you all just love AOL even more then?
Re:Why not use IRC for IM (and ICQ). Free and open (Score:1)
Please (Score:3)
A business that goes crying to the government, "Whaa! The *real* free market is too scary to compete in! Let me incorporate! Protect me!" has little business complaining to the self-same government about being regulated for using the advantages of incorporation that are government regulated and government enforced and otherwise are government meddling in the balance of the market place.
I do not see how a free market should involve the idea of government-created artificial entities competing against individuals.
Re:You negated your own argument (Score:1)
This would not prevent such things as secure eCommerce or on-line banking - things that require secure protocols. But these things are private, not for the public at large.
Secret protocols != secure protocols
Secret protocols == protocols of UNKNOWN security.
There are many secure protocols that are completely publicly documented. ssl for one.
Re:Common sense here? (Score:1)
Re:What the hell. (Score:1)
I don't think they did invent it, though. Wasn't ICQ around before AIM? Even though AOL owns ICQ now, Mirabilis created it...
Re: (Score:1)
AOL owns ICQ (Score:1)
Re:Zzzzz... (Score:1)
oh goody (Score:1)
Re:this is how my tax dollars are spent? (Score:1)
No pun intended there I'm sure.
AIM dominant? (Score:2)
---
www.stallman.org is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on FreeBSD
Re:90% share? How the heck did that happen? (Score:1)
As for the questions you raise, I'm stumped. I can't imagine why AOL wouldn't want to integrate those two products.
this is how my tax dollars are spent? (Score:1)
What next? are they going to demand that the condom dominance by Trojan come to a halt?
Re:None of the FCC's business (Score:2)
Oh, wait a minute...
Anyway, I see what you're getting at. But I don't see any difference between mandating interoperability of IM protocols and mandating interoperability of telephone networks.
I think you're afraid of allowing the FCC to put any restrictions on the contents of a pipe for fear that they'll start saying things like "you can't send THOSE bits over those wires". I see forced-IM-interoperability as different:
--
What about Microsoft? (Score:2)
I think everyone should be left alone. AOL has brought people to the Internet. Face it. Most of you (myself included) would be out of a job, had AOL not brought millions of people to the Internet using their AOL Chat programs and ideas. Hell, take it another step forward, and watch me get marked down to flaimbait / offtopic / whatever, but had Microsoft not created a OS for stupid idiots, then AOL would not have created a system to allow them to communicate, which would bring hundreds of thousands of businesses to the Internet, looking for any extra money.
Some say porn built the current Internet, but I think AOL had a bigger hand: they provided an easy way for people to chat.
Re:I've said it before, cops *love* IM - easy to t (Score:2)
Actually, in the case of ICQ, only offline messages are sent via the server.
If a user is online, messages are sent directly peer-peer (assuming the client/clone supports it).
As well, there is a degree of encryption on the newer protocols, but of course this is pretty limited and already cracked.
True in a sense (Score:1)
AOL did release interoperability specs, which is a start. I wouldn't expect them to give out all the secrets. That'd be bad business.
Should AOL bought ICQ? (Score:1)
Why did AOL buy ICQ anyway?
Maybe they bought them just to make sure Microsoft didn't
damnit (Score:1)
---
FCC vs. DoJ & Anti Trust (Score:2)
Question 1:
How is it that the FCC or the DoJ or anyone else for that matter can use the Merger of AOL/TW to require the release/breakup of the AOL dominance? AOL's dominance in IM has _nothing_ to do with TW, nor will it become more or less dominant as the result of the merger. So how can they use the merger as the springboard for this campaign?
Question 2:Does the FCC have any rights to regulate IM? I would only expect the FCC To become involved in merger proposals when communications assets (such as radio/tv stations, etc) are involved.
AOL gives $$$ to Bush AND Gore (Score:1)
Re:What about Microsoft? (Score:1)
You can mod me flaimbait if you want, but if I had a point it would be that 'user-friendly' OSes and AOL service predated the 'Internet explosion' of the early-mid '90s by several years, so it would be a little specious to claim that Apple, MS, AOL, or any other one company deserves the blame/credit for starting the current trend of everyone being online.
Not to mention... (Score:1)
Re:What the hell. (Score:1)
btw: this settlement helped to secure the "Big tobacco" monopoly by establishing a fund of some sort that ALL tobacco companies (even those who never claimed smoking was all good for you, or who didn't exist then, or who don't exist now) have to pay a big (IIRC, fixed for all) amount of money to. so, smaller companies have to go out of business, because at their level of sales, it drives the cost too high.
z.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But, but, but... (Score:1)
Re:[OOT] Works great?? (Score:1)
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
I'm glad that they have to open AIM (Score:1)
Now, if only we could find a way to verify someone's age in a chatroom, I'd be much happer.
P. Naughton
Re:[OOT] Works great?? (Score:1)
[SNIP]
What's the difference in freatures between TOC and the closed protocol, anyway? Does anyone know? I've never seen the two compared. . . though I guess I haven't looked too hard, either . . .
viewing the away message is a function of the Oscar protocol, not the TOC protocol. Oscar also had support for buddy icons, and numerous other features found lacking in TOC clients. GAIM has experimental support the Oscar in the last few releases, but it is unusable at the moment due to unauthorized clients being blocked so we are stuck with the TOC protocol--for now.
---
Zzzzz... (Score:2)
90% of the Market? So what! (Score:1)
So what if AIM has 90% of the market. There are plenty of good competitors available if people really wanted to use them. It's not like AOL is now going to crank up the price of AIM and milk all their customers.
The only valid argument I could see is if they gave away AIM just to drive a competitor out of business. Maybe my memory is going, but I don't recall anyone charging for instant messaging software, even ICQ.
One thing I think AOL should do is offer clients for other OSs, just to finally cut off that criticism. Heck, they could even just agree to distribute one of the open ones.
What the hell. (Score:2)
The government should have NO BUSINESS in this.
(and as a note -- I would like to see all chat programs using 1 protocol, but still -- the government forcing people to open it is WRONG. It is their program.)
Re:AIM dominant? (Score:1)
Re:What the hell. (Score:3)
You're confused. Monopolies are not illegal, and they can't be broken unless the corporation with the monopoly poses a significant barrier to entry. There are plenty of other successful clients out there. AOL is not preventing these in any way from coming out (unlike Microsoft, for example, who used squeeze tactics on OEM's to prevent the spread of alternative OS's... among other things).
AOL should be allowed to prevent competing companies from using THEIR resources. Do I think it's in their best interest? Not really, but it's not up to me, or you, or even the FCC.
It's the RIGHT thing to do to tell them to open up and follow a standard so that all can communicate.
No, the "right" thing to do is to let the market dictate until such time as AOL breaks an anti-trust law. Nothing is preventing a better IM client (or protocol) from taking over AOL's turf. If that separate userbase gets big enough, AOL will do the common sense thing of making their client compatible, as a service to their users.
It's not like they're preventing you from talking to certain people... use a different client or send them an email, or meet on IRC, or call them on the phone, or write them a letter.
I think AOL *should* open up the spec, but I'd rather have the market dictate it than the government... at least until such time as AOL breaks an anti-trust law.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
AIM is already open ... (Score:1)
If someone wrote a server to go with it, you could set up your local AIM network (I intend to do that, but haven't the time right now)
The applet can be found at
So Easy to Use, No Wonder They've Got a Monopoly (Score:4)
I think it's the whole "chat" mentality that the Internet is still trying to outgrow. Once people start using the net for communication instead of "Hi" "Hi" "How are you?" "Fine. You?" "Great." "Well....see ya!", the world will start to change.
Re:What the hell. (Score:3)
AOL has a "monopoly" on the instant messaging market. In other words, they can and will stifle future development of IM products BECAUSE they dominate.
It's the RIGHT thing to do to tell them to open up and follow a standard so that all can communicate. This allows anyone, maybe even a Slashdot reader, to come up with a better widget and compete FAIRLY.
Re:What the hell. (Score:3)
Re:So Easy to Use, No Wonder They've Got a Monopol (Score:4)
Don't dismiss IM so quickly. Have you ever seen kids and preteens using a computer with an Internet connection? The "Hi-Hi-How are you-Fine dialog" you describe is typical kidspeak.
The kids I have seen using computers LIVE for IM. That ICQ "Uh-Oh" goes off dozens times per evening! If IM had been around way back when, I wouldn't have spent my evenings on the phone, driving my parents crazy.
Now I use IM as a work tool on a daily basis, communicating with geographically distant colleagues. It's very handy to know who's available to answer a quick question. Email and the phone can't give me that functionality
The huge prevalence of IM won't wax and wane with the net's maturity. As the kids will eventually grow out of this communications phase, they will be followed by the next wave of soon-to-be pre-teens.
IMO, IM (eesh - acronymity!) is here to stay, for both societal and practical reasons.
[OOT] Works great?? (Score:2)
Though this is off the orignal topic (and moderators are often overly sensitive about that), it certainly is on topic about this. On the other hand, I will point out that the post above certainly is NOT informative about this issue.
That said, GAIM has some serious shortfalls, though it also has some very nice features.
Positives first. I love the auto-logging feature. I like the fact that it allows you to customize your html instead of having everything forcibly converted for you like AIM does (however, it isn't even close to wysiwyg as you type it all in using the tags--I love it, but certainly not everyone does). No space reserved for annoying adverts.
Negatives. While it does support saving/loading your buddy list to/from a file (necessary, because the list you store on AOL's servers mysteriously disappear quite often), it is unable to import AIM lists (yes, very minor problem, but it makes migrating over harder initially . . .). Furthermore, you can't see a person's away message by using 'Get Info' or similar means (AIM will make it viewable above a person's profile . . .).
Some of this may have changed recently, but I know that these are some problems I initially had with it. I know that my buddy list that was being stored on AOL's server disappeared a day or two ago. I also know that there hasn't been an exploitable, intentional overflow discovered in GAIM.
What's the difference in freatures between TOC and the closed protocol, anyway? Does anyone know? I've never seen the two compared. . . though I guess I haven't looked too hard, either . . .
Re:None of the FCC's business (Score:2)
-B
Re:AIM dominant? (Score:2)
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but AOL bought ICQ some time ago.
Re:It's not quite the same... (Score:2)
At the moment, they aren't doing horrendously nasty things with AIM but what would you say if the following happened: AOL installs filters on IM (since they controll it) to block all messages that criticize every movie released by Warner Bros.? How many people would notice if they did that? Now you could argue that it's their service, they should be able to block whatever they want, but if there is no other service and no way for anyone to see how IM worked, what would prevent the censorship? Things like this are why the FCC gets involved.
But, but, but... (Score:2)
I don't want to have to use ICQ to talk to Bob, Yahoo Messenger to talk to Frank, and AOL's IM to talk to Sally. It's a pain in the ass. It eats more system resources than necessary and generates too many little icons in my tray.
What happens is this: I tell Bob and Frank that the AOL messenger is way better than ICQ and Yahoo. Plus, it can sneak around corporate firewalls by allowing you to specify a port, unlike Yahoo's IM. They try it out and like it. They start moving their friends over and pretty soon I uninstall ICQ and Yahoo, because I've got everyone I chat with on the superior IM system.
Somebody has to have the dominant IM. The fact that AOL is winning this one has nothing to do with the merger. It's just a better IM.
Re:Common sense here? (Score:2)
Re:So Easy to Use, No Wonder They've Got a Monopol (Score:3)
Is the whole pager things silly? Or cell phones? Or PDAs? No, they each have their own places. For some even email is too much. Certainly many people either misuse these things or are overwhelmed, but that's no different than overeating, drinking, or procrstinating.
I'm not sure I'd agree with any FCC action (Score:2)
I'd be happy seeing AOL voluntarily open up their protocol but I cannot agree with the FCC enacting any policy requiring AOL to open up their service or network to outside IM users.
If Microsoft, Yahoo!, or anyone else wants to run the AIM protocol, let them flip the infrastructure/bandwidth bill to do so for their users, just as it is today for an email service.
(This is coming from a guy who runs a dedicated messaging machine with ICQ, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, and MSN Messenger running.)
What!! IM is the biggest complaint??!? (Score:2)
I believe it is revolutionary (Score:3)
I guess that it's a bit unfortunate you do not work in a workgroup environment that is switched on enough to use it properly.
I love not having to pickup the phone, launch an email client or run up to the the second or third floor of the building to speak to a coligue.
As an American living in Europe I am quite happy that IMing brings me closer to my friends and family almost on a daily basis w/out shelling out money to the telcos for international phone charges.
I have not explored 'public' chat rooms w/AOL or ICQ
I am excited about any product that brings a bit more humanity and warmth to something traditionally in terms of rich human interaction. For better or worse, IM is here to stay. Be happy you don't have to have Win/* to use it.
--------------------
IM can disappear as far as I'm concerned (Score:2)
Ok, I feel better now
Well, if it is a media issue... (Score:3)
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
However, this looks more like the FCC ordering AOL to open up their SERVERS, not their protocol. In which case it still is none of the government's business, even if it is a merger case.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buisness critical? (Score:2)
GAIM/AIM/FCC/Protocol Information (Score:2)
I posted this in a smaller thread but I think it deserves a little more visibilty. Sorry for the duplicant info.
Hello, Rob Flynn here, Gaim Author/Maintainer.
Personally, I think that the FCC should mind their own business. True, I would love to have the protocol opened to me but I would rather it be on AOL's on free will. If the FCC starts forcing other companies to open their protocols then what? AOL does not force AIM on us. If you do not like it, you have many other choices. I do not see an monoply issue here. I believe that if the FCC is going to force AOL to release their protocol information then we should be given access to private government communications information. That's just my opinion, though. And now, to answer some questions.
Importing AIM lists: The latest version, 0.10.0 (released two days ago), supports importing of gaim, Aim2 and Aim4 buddy lists This should solve the problem of migrating from Windows to Linux.
As for the issue of not being able to see a persons away message: There's not really much any of us can do here. It's an OSCAR only thing. However, if you run gaim with our currently experimental OSCAR support, it does have the ability to view other's away messages without the need of sending them a message.
There are a few differences in features between the two protocols. The OSCAR server provides us with many more fun things:
The ability to rvous request. These requests can be any type of direct connectiong ranging from: file transfering, direct IM, talk, etc. It also allows us to view other user's away messages and allows us to send messages of 8k in size while TOC only supports messages of 2k in size. DirectIM allows messages of unlimited size (I think the limit is like 2gb if you do the math :-P). Oscar also has support for buddy icons. I do not like these but I know many people that do and know that many people have requested this feature.
Anyways, we do, however, have the ability to receive files from windows users and we can ACCEPT requests from oscar clients. For example, if you are in windows and click 'Get File' on my name, I will receive that request and then can send you a file. Having full oscar support would open up full functionality to us.
Anywyas, I hope this has cleared up any questions you may have. Take care!
---
Rob Flynn
2-fold interoperability (Score:2)
What happens to the interoperability of features and it's effects on innovation once the networks are interconnected? What happens if I'm on ICQ and want to chat with someone on AIM using the IRC-style (where text appears as soon as typed)? What happens when my AIM client wants to send one of these little user-set identifying icons to a friend on ICQ? And how is my AIM going to distinguish between an N/A message and a DND message from ICQ? How about when Company X decides to add a completely original feature to get a niche in the market? How will ICQ handle AIM's talk feature? Sure, we can have something such as W3C establishing standards as with HTML, but do we really want a repeat of the IE and Netscape bungled implementations/proprietary standards/lack of support? Think before you leap.
Their servers, too? (Score:2)
Of course, the fact that they need to "open access to their servers" in the first place just shows that the system is a hack, not a design, in the first place.
Are there really so few people who realize how stupid a centralized IM system with a flat namespace is in the first place? Can you imagine if every email on the internet went through some huge central cluster at email.com before getting to you? Why exactly should I need to be identified by ICQ 5551234 (shades of Compuserve) or roystgnr (flashbacks to Prodigy), rather than roystgnr@jabber.com, or (once my employer/university starts running Jabber) by an existing email address?
Re:What the hell. (Score:2)
#1 on this list (of the article I read) was Micro$oft. What do you suppose their motivation might be, hmm? hmm?
The irony of Micro$oft wanting someone else to open something up is pretty damn hilarious.
Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
Re:[OOT] Works great?? (Score:2)
Hello, Rob Flynn here, Gaim Author/Maintainer.
I can answer a few of your questions/statements about GAIM.
Importing AIM lists: The latest version, 0.10.0 (released two days ago), supports importing of gaim, Aim2 and Aim4 buddy lists This should solve the problem of migrating from Windows to Linux.
As for the issue of not being able to see a persons away message: There's not really much any of us can do here. It's an OSCAR only thing. However, if you run gaim with our currently experimental OSCAR support, it does have the ability to view other's away messages without the need of sending them a message.
There are a few differences in features between the two protocols. The OSCAR server provides us with many more fun things:
The ability to rvous request. These requests can be any type of direct connectiong ranging from: file transfering, direct IM, talk, etc. It also allows us to view other user's away messages and allows us to send messages of 8k in size while TOC only supports messages of 2k in size. DirectIM allows messages of unlimited size (I think the limit is like 2gb if you do the math :-P). Oscar also has support for buddy icons. I do not like these but I know many people that do and know that many people have requested this feature.
Anyways, we do, however, have the ability to receive files from windows users and we can ACCEPT requests from oscar clients. For example, if you are in windows and click 'Get File' on my name, I will receive that request and then can send you a file. Having full oscar support would open up full functionality to us.
Anywyas, I hope this has cleared up any questions you may have. Take care!
---
Rob Flynn
I've said it before, cops *love* IM - easy to tap! (Score:4)
Think about this - every ephemeral instant message transits Northern Virginia.
Law enforcement and intel concerns are driving this one, folks. The last thing the feds want is another decentralized communication protocol - it forces them to lean on too many people to get easy access (*cough*carnivore*cough). "Competition" is a decoy, as should be obvious - opening AOL's servers is only going to guarantee an AOL monopoly on the server/protocol side.
-Isaac
Why would anyone run servers? (Score:2)
Put yourself in AOL's shoes. Suddenly you have to let people use your servers and get nothing in return. Will you (a) happily carry on paying for those servers or (b) wait for Microsoft, etc. to produce their own AOL compatible messaging servers and then stop paying for your own now that MS are carrying the load?
You have to allow people to make money, or they won't play the game.
_____
Re:AIM dominant? (Score:2)
1) Six months after the AOL/TW merger closes.
2) Whenever AOL deploys technology that allows AIM and ICQ to interoperate.(Under the theory that once you make your own services interoperate, extending that to rival services is not as big a deal, I guess).
Comment removed (Score:3)
I don't approve of AOL's tactics.. but... (Score:2)
We aren't talking about some kind of monoploy.. or some kind of limited medium. There's room for thousands of IM type things out there.
This isn't even telco, where there is sort of a public-land issue, when it comes to IM, it's a limitless resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:90%? Whatever... (Score:2)
Oh, wait, AOL owns ICQ also.
Re:Why would anyone run servers? (Score:2)
True, the amount you can charge them is set, but you can'tdo that with IM without a drastic change in the protocol.
And if the protocol is open, people will just get round that.
_____
Why in God's name (Score:2)
"I jist bot this computar - and I figuerd out how to maek lots of money with it. Jst send $1 to me and ad yoru naem to th botom of the list"
"WHAT'S THIS PROGRAM DO TEST TEST TEST TEST HELLO"
"Hey? Where's all the porn?"
etc
None of the FCC's business (Score:5)
If AOL's behavior is in some way "anticompetitive", there are other agencies (DoJ, for instance) who do have general say over that matter. And mergers do invite scrutiny. So if there's some specific DoJ question to be answered around their IM networks, then fine. The FCC does have some authority over cable systems, which AOL is trying to buy. But the FCC should NOT consider IM to be theirs to regulate.
Re:Common sense here? (Score:2)
Well, here's my take on the issue: the AIM network is infrastructure, whereas eBay's listings aren't.
If you want to run an auction site that competes with eBay, then you can, and eBay can't stop you.
If you want to provide a competing IM service, on the other hand, you have to use the AIM protocols, because there are already millions of users of the AIM protocols, and they're not likely to switch systems. You're stuck, unless you can access the protocols.
Protocols in specific, and infrastructure in general, must be made public, or you end up with monopolies that can't be unseated, because you can't compete with them. Example: the number of people who can't change operating systems because they have to edit Microsoft Word files.
It's not quite the same... (Score:5)
Seen in that light, it's a little different -- it's not "You have to do this", but "If you're going to become an even larger company with your fingers in this many more pies, you're going to have to open up a little more on the monopolies you've got currently."
Sounds a lot more reasonable that way. If AOL doesn't want to open up IM, they can just not merge with Time-Warner.
Re:Please (Score:2)
It is still a case of government regulation in the marketplace, is it not? Is this not the very thing people who want a 'free market' protest against -- the "there is no place for government regulation in the marketplace" attitude?
Gasp! You are not saying that sometimes government regulation in the marketplace is a good thing, are you? You'll have all the rabid capitalists here reeling in shock!
Anyways, so why in a "free market" is there any *need* for government-created artificial entities at all?
IM dominance (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Buisness critical? (Score:4)
Have a look at Jabber.org [jabber.org] for the project's home, JabberCentral [jabbercentral.com] for info on clients, and Jabber.com [jabber.com] if your company needs custom client or server programming done, or commercial-grade support for your Jabber needs. (Disclaimer: The latter entity pays my salary...)
Eric
--
Buisness critical? (Score:5)
We have been trying to lock down the workstations configuration so people stop f***ing them up with screensavers and whatnot. Recently we released the list of "approved" aplications and recieved a ship storm that AIM was not on there. it seems that several folks have taken to using this as their primary form of interstate comunication between departments/facilities. This forced our upper management to look into creating our own "chat thingie" without the file transfer (this is buisness after all). AOL is a closed standard, preventing us from acomplishing that. The point is, management was taken compleetly by suprise by the fact that this "toy" had sudenly become a buisness critical aplication and the failure of AOL to open it's standard has actualy impacted our buisness. Go DOJ go DOJ!!
90%? Whatever... (Score:2)
Perhaps they're forgetting that people can use more than one messenger at a time? I know I do, having friends on different messaging systems.
--
Common sense here? (Score:5)
You obviously didn't watch Barney growing up (Score:2)
Re:What the hell. (Score:3)
Re:What the hell. (Score:2)
The facts are:
It's AOL's R&D dollars that went into it.
It's AOL's servers.
It's THEIR GODDAMN APPLICATION.
So what makes you think that they should just open up and give MS (or anyone else) access to it? Why should other companies reap the benefits of AOL's R&D? Just because they were successful?
That's -bullshit-.
No one has a god-given right to be able to talk to it with any client they decide to build.
Jesus H. Christ. Use some common sense.
Re:Buisness critical? (Score:2)
So, I don't see why AIM being open or not matters, as long as everyone is using the same system. We use the MSN Messenger service at my work (for work communication). It's fine. They may be the biggest fish in the pool, but they're not the only one.
I've actually got AIM, MSN Messenger, and Yahoo Pager on my machine, because I use MSN for my cow-orkers, AIM for some friends, and Yahoo for the one friend who cannot get anything else out through his firewall.
You negated your own argument (Score:2)
Which is it? A private tool or one that belongs to no one, therefore owned by the public? I believe you're right on the latter. The government turned it over to the private sector in 1990 or so. But, while the internet backbone is privately owned - like telephone lines, it is also a public resource, like telephone lines.
The telephone industry is highly regulated by the FCC as far as technical standards are concerned, but not as far as what you can say over the phone. This alone I believe is a precedent for the FCC to be able to regulate technical standards on the internet if they wish to (right now they don't).
I really do believe that it would be a Good Thing(TM) for the FCC to assure that all communications protocols intended for the general public (ie, IM, Streaming Media, and the like) be open standards. There can be many open standards, but all content intended for public consumption should be available to all (for example, Winblows Media Player content should be available for Linux users). This would not prevent such things as secure eCommerce or on-line banking - things that require secure protocols. But these things are private, not for the public at large.
The bottom line, in my view, is that if content is intended for the general public, be it web-pages (NO M$ "extensions" should be allowed), streaming media (Anyone should be able to write a RealPlayer or WMP clone), or IM (either AIM or GAIM should work), the standards and protocols must be made public. Even if there is no FCC rule requiring a certain standard, it is the job of the FCC to assure that all public content is available to all.
Re:Nope, it's used on the public internet (Score:2)
All communications over the internet intended for the general public should be free and open standards even if the exact source code of a given program isn't free. This goes for RealPlayer and Winblows Media Player as well as AIM and their ilk.
I'm sorry, but my hot chats with my girlfriend are not meant for the general public. I believe they have sex sites for that, if that's your thing.
Re:None of the FCC's business (Score:3)
Get with it, my friend. Protocols are raw pipes. The days when you could define a raw information pipe in terms of what it is made of are over.
--
Re:Zzzzz... (Score:2)
Re:"cops *love* IM - easy to tap" !?? (Score:2)
The name of the game is traffic analysis, building a map of who's talking to whom.
I'm willing to bet that the FBI's foot-draggin on carnivore is directly related to the fact that they may have been saving the message bodies of only current suspects, but saving everyone's headers for future reference. Too bad the truth is unlikely to come out barring a major fsck-up in document handling by the FBI (which is how COINTELPRO got blown wide open).
-Isaac
It's because of the merger. (Score:2)
At first blush that was my reaction too - WTF is the FCC (!!) doing telling AOL or anyone else to open thier code?
Then upon further reading, it turns out the FCC is doing this as part of the AOL / Time-Warner merger deal. In that regard it makes sense. The merger gives one company a hell of a lot of clout, getting them to shake loose a few proprietary things as part of the deal sounds like a good idea to me.
IM dominance?!? (Score:2)
AOL sigle-handedly created the IM market, ICQ jumped in much later. Yahoo and MS weren't on the scene until everyone and their dog had an IM client, of course they can't break into the market.