U.S. Preparing To Block AOL / Time-Warner Deal 130
Tuzanor writes: "Yahoo! is reporting that government officials are preparing to block the AOL-Time Warner deal if an agreement over Internet access isn't made in 2 weeks." I'd feel a lot better about this merger if local cable (like Time-Warner has such a big hand in) itself faced tougher competition than it does right now.
Re:good (Score:1)
Why are you such an annoying whiner? If the CDs are starting to pile up, why not throw them away, like most of us do? What are you keeping them for? An why would you be "incensed" at receiving CDs instead of disks? Do you have a right to free disks?
EU Anti-Trust (Score:1)
The EU have now approved the merger now TimeWarner called off the deal with EMI. Since the case is still under review by the FTC, I think it's fair to say the EU had good grounds to also investigate this deal, it's a shame people couldn't look past their nose and realise this.
Washington Post article (Score:2)
This is an AOL/TW Goal (Score:2)
Picture, if you will. A user starts on AOL, and, without ever leaving the AOL revenue stream (Ad banners and affiliates) they get news from a dozen diffrent sources. Entertainment and TV/Movie info, running web searches, buying products, etc. And if they really wanted to, AOL could make life really interesting by mandating that no AOL-owned website may link to a non-AOL-owned website. Think it could never happen? Don't kid yourself, folks, it's easier than you may think.
In Other News Around the World ... (Score:4)
... VA Linux received permission to acquire the combined Andover.Net/slashdot conglomerate, adding these web sites to its linux.com and sourceforge holdings to create the dominant open source web company. Note that all these companies are for-profit, investor owned entities. No FTC investigation or concessions required.
... Red Hat acquires Cygnus Solutions, creating the dominant open source software company and establishing ownership over the development team for the critical GCC development toolchain. No investigation or concessions required.
I think it's odd that we see all these open-sourcers jumping all over corporate mergers when their own small section of the software world is dominated by a handful of players, especially Red Hat and VA. Best to first take the log out of your own eyes, boys.
How about IBM/Microsoft/Apple ? (Score:1)
Apparently the feds are going to block this move not because of antirust isues but becauase the resulting desktop system wold inherit the dominace of Windows but incorporate the faliurs of OS/2 and MacOS with the varius Windows problems.
The other problem is that the AOL/WB deal wold see Neo making "me too" posts and Trinity asking "How dose RTFM work ?"
to say nothing of the horor Bugs Bunney wold become
Re:AOL/TimeWarner better start making better (Score:2)
Not good enough for you? Get your local governments to stop granting legal monopolies in exchange for taxes... er, "franchise fees", and let competing cable companies set up shop with their own plant. Maybe someone will have the brains to do full-blown fiber-to-the-home. "Why yes, I *would* like a 100Mbps pipe to the Internet..."
govt: go screw something else (Score:1)
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
More like worried that with a single company (which) would own every entertainment medium on the planet - movies, music, radio, web you'd be unable to get anything but that if that was what they wanted to give you.
Re:This would be insightful, except (Score:1)
How about because they get to dig up my front yard to run them whether I like it or not, but nobody else gets to run any?
Re:Let's send them back! (Score:1)
Re:No, I think you are confused. (Score:1)
Re:AOL/TimeWarner better start making better (Score:1)
Time-Warner has already paid local government their bribe (franchise fee, which they turn around and charge to the customers) which lets them be the only ones who can legally do that.
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Sieze power.
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Regarding cable television, I agree that the technology means that your decision has to be shared with other people. The solution is to abandon the dying broadcast technologies and run very high bandwidth fiber end to end. Technology will make this possible soon. At any rate, the less television you watch the better. :)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Your anti-socialism mechanism is producing false positives.
Local cable operations (Score:5)
In such a system, open access would be the norm. Service providers would have equal access to the "other end" of the cables running into every home, and the citizen who was served by that cable would make the decision to hook it up to one or the other.
Hopefully in such a system, we wouldn't have pointlessly diverse content delivery systems (coax, twisted pair, circuit switched, packet switched, etc.), but instead be blessed with an all-fiber network that runs right into the point of delivery.
Doesn't anyone else think that the people should empower themselves this way?
Uhhh... (Score:1)
Re:AT&T good, AOL bad. But why? (Score:1)
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
Re:good (Score:1)
Re:Good. (Score:1)
Although I'd have probably used "Overrated".
Charles Miller
--
Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad thin (Score:2)
In one hundred years time, people will look back on the 20th/21st century obsession with letting corporations do whatever the hell they want in the same way as we now look back on the "Divine Right of Kings".
They'll wonder why the hell people who are so willing to put immense restrictions (e.g. the US Constitution) on an elected government would be so religiously opposed to putting restrictions on un-elected businesses, who often have
Charles Miller
--
Re:In Other News Around the World ... (Score:1)
not that i agree (tho i do hate the big ugly grey OSDN banners on t.o) but i hear plenty of bitching over VA...
Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad thing? (Score:1)
The most obvious reason to block merger (Score:4)
The reason why the FTC may block the America Online/Time-Warner is more than just cable modem access.
The big issue here is the fact that between the resources of AOL and Time-Warner, they would create the world's most powerful corporation in terms of control of mass media.
If you look at the combined assets of AOL and Time-Warner, the result is ownership of a very sizeable fraction of the means to create media content AND distribute it. AOL is the world's largest Internet Service Provider (no contest), especially with their purchases of CompuServe, Netscape, ICQ, WinAmp, MapQuest and a few other Internet companies. Time-Warner has a massively powerful presence in movie and television program production, most of the influential cable TV channels (CNN Networks, HBO Networks, Turner Broadcasting), their own TV network, ownership of many cable systems in the USA, a book division, a major periodicals division, and a major producer of popular music.
Is it small wonder why if AOL and Time-Warner merged it would have made the company created by the fictional Elliot Carver from the James Bond movie TOMORROW NEVER DIES a very distinct a frightening reality? AOL Time Warner could have wielded the power to have a major say in what we see in the movie theatres and TV, what books and periodicals we read, what web sites we can visit and what music we can hear. Talk about potential abuse of First Amendment rights! (shudder)
Until they drag my ass in and MAKE me watch... (Score:2)
The power of the press has always belonged to those who owned one.
AOL/TW are going to be in every damn living room and theatre and TV set.
Except mine, I guess. I don't own one!
Its not as if we didn't have a choice NOT to go there. We just have to insure that they can't choke off everywhere else to go to (Sort of like the RIAA & MPAA and other neo-Ludddites.)
Re:No, I think you are confused. (Score:2)
Even so, I have doubts that TW has made their 13% profit back on the cable wiring side of their business. Instead, they have built a system where the real profits come from the content side, and they've used that content to subsidize the actual infrstructure costs. AT+T bleeds money off on their cable operations.
As far as competition goes, the system is already sorta "open" in the sense that the telephone companies have full rights to deliver television and data services to you. They also have the capital to do so. But, yet how many people in the US can get TV from the local Bell? Almost no one -- primarily because the Bells know that they'd never make their money back from infrastructure investment.
So, yeah, cable sucks because it's *expensive* to run coax to everyone's house when only 50% of the people will subscribe. (Cable Internet services are really just an incentive to get more people onto the TV system.) No amount of regulation is really going to change that.
--
Re:No, I think you are confused. (Score:3)
Keep in mind, cable TV is not exactly an essential service. Maybe a high speed Internet infrastructure will be in the future, but I don't think you can really make that argument right now.
Things like DSL or electric utiltity competition aren't a real solution either -- they primarily shift the edge costs of billing and customer service to other companies and don't address the real infrastructure costs. DSL is getting a real free ride because the copper networks were built out at great expense years ago, and it's only the fact that they've already been paid for many times over that DSL can get away with it's pricing system. (The wiring in my building and the telephone poles outside carrying my DSL was put in the 1920s, for example.)
The only real solution to the "last mile monopoly" problem is wireless. One big reason people the government is trying to auction of spectrum blocks is to let this problem resolve itself without having to regulate big contributers like TW or the Bells.
--
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
What??! (Score:1)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:What's wrong with AT&T? (Score:1)
Of course, I have DirecTV, which gives me more channels and orders of magnitude better reception for about 2/3 the price.
Rick
OT:Who's been busy with the clue stick? (Score:1)
2000 version of quote
if at first you don't succeed, keep the evidence as prior art
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
--
Cisco is a counter-example. (Score:1)
If this strict interpetation of fidicuary responsiblity was correct, then Cisco management should be in prison for abiding by open IETF protocols instead of embracing and extending them into a proprietary control of the Internet (which was easily in their grasp to do over the last decade).
Cisco didn't go that route, for some linear combination of realizing growing the pie bigger was better than owning the whole pie, and the avoidance of inevitable anti-trust. Such nuanced decisions are part and parcel of managing a corporation -- as would AOL Time Warner supporting open access. In neither case would a "fidicuary responsibility" lawsuit arise.
Re:Local cable operations (Score:1)
BAD IDEA!!!
One aspect of government in America, one of the few duties I believe it SHOULD perform, is to protect the rights of the minority. That is a key aspect of life in America: majority rule, with protection of minority rights!!! Its hard enough for those of us in the bible belt to keep what services are available despite arcane biblical restrictions against them, without taking away what rights the minority has to those services. For instance, I like strip clubs. God help me, I like naked women. Many people don't, and that's fine. There is no law that says they have to attend services at Rick's Cabaret on saturday nights. But if the bible-thumpers had their way, no one would be able to enjoy that activity. Porn on the internet would be outlawed, gambling, as well as any number of other activities.
Back to cable, i used to live in an apartment complex with its own cable system. there were a lot of old people there, and what young people did live there usually had younger school age children, say, 5 to 12 years old. These people found channels like MTV and Comedy Central to be either offensive or dangerous to young minds, so they successfully lobbied the complex to remove those channels from the lineup. So now nobody has the option of watching them. God help me I haven't seen South Park in four years! (or however long its been since it started) That's not just wrong, its un-frikkin-American!
so that's why this idea, though well-intentioned, should NEVER be implemented. Aside from that, its also rather socialistic in nature and I disagree with that as well, but that's a little off-topic. Now i've got to go find a new story to moderate.
Re:In Other News Around the World ... (Score:1)
Linux has less than 10 million users in the United States, and of those a relatively small number rely on the products and services of VA Linux and Andover.net. GCC is of interest to the development community; some end-user distributions don't even install it by default.
Take the fog out of your eyes. AOL-Time Warner affects mainstream America in an enormous way. Linux companies buying each other out affect a very small portion of the market. Cable Internet access is developing much more quickly than Linux, particularly in the home market. We will be seeing a lot more people complaining that they have no alternative to AOL-Time Warner cable access than people complaining about the lack of a good development tool for Linux.
Besides, if you're so concerned about VA Linux and Red Hat dominating their so-called "industries," why don't you write a letter to the FTC? One of the principal reasons why this AOL-Time Warner investigation is proceeding is because so many people voiced objections to it. If enough people cried foul over the VA Linux acquisitions, then the FTC would have investigated them too.
credit to Gov't on this one (Score:4)
We have a tendency to criticize quickly and then forget to complement. I think most of us agree that unless competition is protected, the merger should not go through.
I know we squabble about the issues surrounding the periphery, but lets please thank those deserving the credit [ftc.gov] for doing their job correctly: preserving justice and freedom.
Re:The most obvious reason to block merger (Score:1)
Ten years ago, if I wanted to find out information on problems in the Middle East, I could go to ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, AP, Reuters, NY Times and that's about it. Now, just for starters I've got:
http://www.arab.net/
http://www.arabicnews.com/
http://www.amin.org/
http://www.israelwire.com/
http://www.jta.org/
http://www.jpost.com/
And those are links off of Yahoo's "full coverage" page. These are not obscure sources.
People bemoan the changes in the Telecommunications Act that removed restrictions on ownership of television and radio stations, but we've got more choice now than we've ever had.
Sure maybe people don't take advantage of these alternative sources of media, but it's not up to the government to force them. Alternative information and viewpoints have never been more readily available.
-Bruce
What's wrong with AT&T? (Score:1)
So they're a big corporation
The only gripe I have is with cable itself
Re:No, I think you are confused. (Score:1)
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
Re:Local cable operations (Score:1)
--------
Life is a race condition: your success or failure depends on whether you get the work done on time.
Re:good (Score:1)
These days, you're right - everyone has coasters. Now, if they shipped their software on ZIP disks...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
The utility provides digital cable television service (and bills for it, across the hall from where you pay your light bill if you do it in person) but has stayed out of the ISP business, instead leasing the lines to local ISPs (basic consumer service starts at ~1MB down/128K up, goes on from there) at VERY competitive rates.
I don't know what the effect of redundant wires is on the big-picture costs, but eliminating the monopoly on cable access (and building a network that can actually support the advertised bandwidth usage rather than overselling it by a factor of 10 makes it competitive with DSL in terms of consistent QOS too) has had a predictably positive effect on the cost and quality of local TV and broadband net service.
Re:Local cable operations (Score:1)
Qwest did something similar on a national scale... they negotiated rights-of-way with railroad lines, and they now resell dark fiber to other telecom providers.
--
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
So do you want anybody who wants to start a cable company to be able to dig a trench across your front yard to bury their cable a week after someone else did the same thing a week after someone else did the same thing, etc., or do you want no companies able to do so in order to offer you cable service?
AFAIK, no cable co. can dig your lawn without your permission. A friend of mine got cable run to his house once, and they had to ask his neighbor's permission to dig a trench across his lawn. This is as it should be, IMHO. If it is your lawn in question you can either tell them 'no', or negotiate a fee for allowing them to dig.
Anyway, cable companies generally don't run cable to homes on speculation, except in new developments where the place is already dug up anyway. They only dig when you request to be connected.
--
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone else think that the people should empower themselves this way?
I'd prefer to see the elimination of laws that prevent competition in the cable industry. I don't believe that operating a telecom company (or sports stadium, golf course, etc.) is a proper function of government, nor is it necessary or practical.
--
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
It certainly is necessary and practical.
Of course telecom infrastructure is necessary, or at least desirable. My point was that state ownership of the means of production is neither necessary nor economically advantageous. Would you agree that competitive private enterprise invariably produces goods and services of lower cost and higher quality than do government monopolies?
they are operated by the people and in the people's interest.
It would be nice if that were always true. Unfortunately public services often end up being operated by politicians, for politicians. There is less accountability than in the private sector, lots of mismanagement, and sometimes even outright corruption. Outsourcing to private firms helps somewhat, but still leaves room for contract padding and old-boy networks.
Again, I'd like to see cable television deregulated and opened up to competition. The state should at most sell right-of-way trench and pole access at-cost, to all companies who want to pay for it. It should not be in the business of running a head end, routers, uplinks, proxy servers, billing systems, etc. Private ISPs already do a great job - why would we want the government to take over control of a healthy, competitive industry? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Socialism is a failure. Acknowledge and move on.
--
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
Does anyone seriously propose that competing companies build alternative roads to your house and that they compete freely?!
Not really. While that scenario might work for interstate highways, turnpikes, etc. I agree that it's quite unworkable for the last mile... but here's a workable solution that may not have occurred to you: private homeowners' associations already build and maintain roads infrastructure for tens of thousands of neighborhoods in the U.S. The homeowners' associations are a form of privately-run democratic government at the neighborhood level. Within the scope of the groups' charters, contracts serve in place of land-use laws, and dues serve in place of taxes. Of course there is a need for some entity to enforce the contracts, and that's where government comes in.
--
I'm not particularly uncomfortable with this... (Score:1)
-Moondog
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
Who's been busy with the clue stick? (Score:3)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:1)
Aha. <sarcasm> That must explain why all those european countries with socialized medicine have such low lifespans, low vaccination rates, and high infant moratility. </sarcasm>
There are certain things, such as infrastructure, that often work better under public control than private. Nationalizing the cable lines might not be a bad idea.
I really feel pity on this guy (Score:1)
Isn't it quite obvious that this sad and lonely guy is suffering from post-traumatic stress from when his ex-girlfriend dumped him, taking his TV with her. Now he thinks he has a life, something meaningful to do everyday. I really pity such abnormal behaviour, we all should do. However, I'm scared too. It's not hard to imagine such freaks at a kindergarten spraying bullets at all the small innocent kids.
- Steeltoe
Uuuuhu, even my brother don't own a television set, so there ;-)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Scared? About this crap? "movies, music, radio, web" - Is that all there is to your life? When was the last time you powered down what Douglas Coupland referred to as "the entertainment totem" and went outside for some fresh air? Visit a LIBRARY? Take a walk in the park? Go to a MUSEUM? Ride a bicycle? Call a friend? Do some volunteer work? Attend a student recital at the music school of the nearest university? You said "movies" - ever watch a film-school student's class project? Way more interesting than anything TW/AOL could ever dish out.
This reminds me about the part of the first Wayne's World movie where the arcade owner talks about his customers hitting the bar to get another pellet.
Time-Warner and AOL serve "entertainment" (your word, not mine) pellets to the willing rats.
If you are reading Slashdot, you just might be lucky enough to have the mental horsepower to rise above the mainstream schlock TW/AOL push down the pipe at you.
What, are you worried you might not get your Urkel re-runs? The new hit song by the next chest-implanted 16-year old pop star? Is that what you want?
Put down the remote or the mouse or whatever, and think about what's really important. Is all this hand-wringing over this deal really worth it? Are the forms of passive so-called "entertainment" that TW/AOL serve the most important things in your life? Maybe that junk is entertaining to you...
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
As if the BBC, the Christian Science Monitor, and all affiliates of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting would suddenly disappear into thin air the instant the merger was finalized. Right.
People are lazy, and if it's easy to read what AOL puts in front of you and more work to go read The Nation, people will choose the easy alternative.
This means the people are making a voluntary choice. They are choosing to be lazy. They have to accept the consequences of that choice. TW/AOL is not the one making a choice. People have the individual responsibility to seek out objective sources of information. I hardly think TW/AOL (or the government, for that matter) can or should be entrusted, expected, nor legislated into doing that. If you look to TW/AOL to spoon feed you your news and other information, then you deserve what you get.
Big media is not your mommy, despite what all the new-age, new-media luminaries from McLuhan onward would like you to believe. Big media will not take care of you. Big media will not think for you. Big media will give you their version of events, their morality, their biases. The people (however lazy) need to use their own moral compass to guide themselves through the muck. The big media outlets (TW/AOL especially) have no reponsibility to take care of you and to do your thinking for you. You have to do that yourself.
Ha! As if the crap mass-media consumer news outlets are going to get any worse as a result of this merger? Could they be any more intellectually bankrupt as a result of the TW/AOL merger than they already are?
Be lazy - pay the price.
Well remember the movie Rollerball (Score:1)
One corporation had media (Time Warner-AOL), one had energy (Chevron-Texaco), one had computers (Microsoft),etc., etc. And that is just from watching CNN this week.
The fact that MGM is remaking this movie for next Summer's release may just be a cry of help from Hollywood (sorry can't stop snickering).
Anyway check it out ROLLERBALL [rollerball.com]
Well, that's good. (Score:1)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:2)
No, I think you are confused. (Score:1)
When has choice ever been pointless?
Monopoly cable grants are the root of the problem. I get rapped by my ATT because they are the only people my local government has alowed to run cable. I'm not convinced that this rape was ever needed, and I'll never be convinced that it should last forever. I'll feel far more empowered if the public right of way is opened up rather than clamped down by my city hall.
Cable is not like electricity, where centrilization and standards had demonstrable social savings and monopolies made sense. Nor is it like the phone network where you need an individual line to each house. The more information networks you have the better off you are. Open it up and let the greedheads fight for clients.
Regulation should be along the lines of free access. No, not spam. People should be alowed to serve in a pull based way, it's the free speech of the future. Access should also be provided to the poor, as this will be the 911 of the future as well, but that is another matter to be considered if anyone can prove that it would be cheaper to abandon the current voice phone network than to expand and maintain it.
Re:No, I think you are confused. (Score:1)
Regulation is what monopoly grants are all about. The idea is to get a service without getting raped. The most sucessful and natural of these was electricity production, where the utilities were prommised 13% proffit and no more. So cable companies got their monopoly, where are the regulations? Do you really want internet regulations?
I'd rather see the cable monoply frachises dissapear in a cloud of reason. Just about everybody has freaking cable, and the cost of installing has got to have gone down by now. I have visions of big fat cable plants and excess capacity when each build up ends. It's too bad the monoply franchises were ever granted instead of waiting for cable to grow on it's own. The cable right of way runs underneath powerlines in my back yard. There's plenty of room for other wires up there.
AT&T is the bottleneck (Score:3)
AT&
Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:2)
You *gasp* can't compete and build another cable network. Most cities that I know of have franchise agreements with a particular carrier. This agreement states that the only one allowed to provide service within that city is that specific carrier. If competetion in the local cable market could be done, it would have been done already.
-
Local cable competition (Score:3)
After all, if you don't like your cable company, you can move!
(For the sarcasm/humor impaired, don't take the above text seriously.)
Monopoly politics (Score:2)
Blue Neon - a wonderfully insane online comic [keenspace.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
This sort of thing (both the Onion article and your reference to it) are the best proof I've seen that television seriously undermines public discourse. Someone dares to question the importance that is placed on passive diversions like television and movies, and you start mocking him in a manner that is only a step or two above namecalling. I mean, why didn't you just accuse him of being a "nerd" or a "brain" or somesuch?
In essence, you're doing volunteer work for various large media corporations.
Re:good (Score:1)
what abuse? (Score:2)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
Re:Local cable competition (Score:1)
Likewise... (Score:2)
They built the cable lines, why should they have to share them?
Al Gore and his DARPA friends built the Internet backbone (no really); why should they have to share it?
With DSL you have to live next door to the telco (Score:2)
Use DLS[sic] instead of cable modem
With DSL you have to live within about 3.5 km of the telco's switch. And most towns don't have their switches placed in such a way to cover the whole town.
andover and linux (Score:1)
Re:In Other News Around the World ... (Score:1)
Re:Local cable operations (Score:1)
Executives must push for a closed system / control (Score:2)
Re:AOL (Score:1)
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:1)
Again, you confuse huge market cap with monopoly. AIM and ICQ control most of the IM market, yes... but does that mean that consumers must use those products? Is there no competition? Of course there's competition. The competition sucks, so consumers choose AIM/ICQ. If you think this is a monopoly, you're badly mistaken. This is capitalism at it's best.
Also... I'm having a hard time understanding why TW should open up their cable systems. Yeah yeah, the FTC (why the hell do they exist (read: we pay taxes) anyway?) wants them to in order to get the merger through, but why? I would think that this is a huge opportunity for an entrepreneurial company to step in and build a bigger and better network. This isn't happening. There are currently other networks around, I'm sure. Why don't they be forced to open up their lines too? Why shouldn't everything be open? ISPs shouldn't have to *gasp* build their own network! Give me a break. Time Warner simply has a better and bigger network, and since they don't want to spend their money to support other ISPs, this causes them to be a monopoly? Am I missing something?
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:3)
AOL has more content, more POPs than any other ISP in the country (maybe the world), and provides their own content in addition to the Internet. Explain to me why this doesn't justify higher prices? It's a better (in 23,000,000 subscribers' minds) product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. They're not holding a gun to your head.
Let's send them back! (Score:2)
I have an idea... Insteading creating further waste by throwing them away, lets collect as many of those frickin' CDs as we can. Stuff them into 5 gallon garbage bags, and load as many U-Hauls as possible. Then drive down to Dulles, VA and unload them onto the steps of AOL headquarters. Maybe they'd get the message.
Re:Well you know the saying... (Score:2)
As for who gave them the authority, you answered the question yourself; the voters did. And I don't quite follow the next two sentences; personally I'm for it. I don't like the idea of large corporations taking unfair advantage of their size and market share to squash everyone else. Better big government than big business, because we can at least vote for the government.
--
AOL/TimeWarner better start making better (Score:2)
Seems awful stupid to me to offer such an outrageous deal to ISPs in light of the proposed merger. Who do they think they are, Micro$oft?
They should have offered leased lines at reasonable prices, not a per customer charge, and perhaps 1% to 2% of generated ad revenue. AOL/TimeWarner had better watch their step, or they may become the next target of the DOJ!
I would feel a lot better... (Score:2)
I would feel a lot better about this merger if Time-Warner wasn't one of the top 5 contributors to the Gore\Liebierman campaign (iirc).
Re:Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad thin (Score:4)
True, but there's the (significant) chance that you either won't have enough of a customer base as compared to the Big Corporations to stay in business, or that you will just be bought out by one of said Corporations. That is one of the big reason why large corporate monopolies are bad -- they have a tendency to squash potential competition.
If you let the Government push around the companies you don't like, soon they'll start pushing around the companies you do like.
Or, as in more and more recent cases, the company will push the government around. For example, the MPAA et al buying the DMCA.
=================================
Re:good (Score:2)
Flip-flop of death (Score:3)
What's boning them now is Case's flip-flop on open access. Before negotiations for the merger began he was a vocal advocate for legislation forcing network owners to open their networks to competing ISP without their own lines.
Now he's going to be a high muckety-muck with billions in stock and stock options at one of the world's largest corporations, and *poof*! Suddenly, those pro-competitive open networks he used to champion are tantamount to communism. Regulators tend to notice things like this.
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm."
Huh? (Score:3)
The idea that a single company would own every entertainment medium on the planet - movies, music, radio, web - doesn't scare you enough?
Don't hold your breath (Score:3)
I see the same thing happening with the Time Warner-AOL deal. Eventually they will relent and agree to open their networks, but when it comes time for them to actually lease a line to a competing ISP, I wager they will balk. They will argue there are technical problems, or claim the other ISP is being unreasonable, or just sell the line for an outrageous price that would make it impossible to make a profit. Whatever the case, don't count on open access very soon, it just isn't in AOL or Time Warner's best interest.
.sigless
Enigma
Enigma
Re:In Other News Around the World ... (Score:3)
Now, it may not be a problem as long as journalists have some integrity and money doesn't mean everything, but then...
... (Score:2)
Twarner-USAOL (Score:2)
The Federales are getting antsy about the possibility that the USA will be merged next into the Times-Warner-AOL colossus, and then they'll all be demoted to customer support with pimply-faced "1337 #4}{0r5" as their bosses.
EU did something right for a change? (Score:2)
"The world's largest Internet services provider's efforts to buy the cable and publishing giant Time Warner won European approval on Wednesday only after AOL offered to sever all structural links with German media group Bertelsmann AG (BTGGga.F). That concession eliminated the risk of dominance in the emerging market for online delivery of music over the Internet and software-based music players."
Being Dutch this leaves me slightly puzzled, do I have to believe now that the EU, this most bureaucratic, most inefficient, most undemocratic, and sometimes even corrupt supra-govermental institution did something right for a change?
This seems to be a matter where the EU was aware of the European situation (AOL having ties with Bertelsmann), aware of possible monopolies (AOL+TW+BM against the rest), and they were able to get a result.
The EU categorically forbidding the AOL/TW merger seems to be a bit rich.
BTW: http://www.annodomini.org.uk/aol-t ime -warner/ [annodomini.org.uk]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Wired Article and AOL/Time-Warner heads (Score:2)