AOL Time Warner Netscape CNN... and AT&T? 385
Baldrson noted a bit running on Yahoo right now where the AOL, Time, Warner, Netscape, CNN mega corporation is in talks with AT&T for their cable network. The inevitable and scary consolidation continues ever onward. The US govt will be sold on eBay in a few years, but only Microsoft and the corporation formerly known as Netscape AOL Warner CNN AT&T Time (NAWCAT) will be left to bid. But since Nawcat will already own ebay, there will no doubt be rumors of unfair play.
Road Runner Users (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Road Runner Users (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't RR/TimeWarner to Open to Competitors? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't RR/TimeWarner to Open to Competitors? (Score:3, Funny)
Road Runner is the best by far. Maybe it's just this area, but I have only had one problem in the last 8 months since I moved here, and that was only for about an hour.
Speed is consistantly fast, I can connect to my machine to do anything I want from the outside, and news groups just fly.
A guy I work with (a non-tech) was aking if he should switch from dial-up to cable.
He said, "I bet you can download a lot of dirty pictures over cable."
I responded, "I don't download dirty pictures anymore."
He looked a bit confused and asked, "Really?"
I said, "No, now I download dirty MOVIES!"
He ordered it that afternoon.
Re:Road Runner Users (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously though, the fcc is mandating that RR open up the pipes for other ISP's to offer cable modem service. First on the list, Earthlink. 15 seconds (yes, it's in the court order, 15 seconds) after Earthlink gets their 1st cable modem subscriber, AOL is allowed to start offering their service via cable modem.
Pain in the ass for us because we've had to do a whole lot of work on the back-end systems and provisioning stuff so that they can be provisioned according to which ISP they're subscribing.
This stuff with AT&T is a little confusing because after AT&T bought MediaOne, they were ordered to divest of all their shares of RR, which they did. AT&T in the Boston area is still using the RR brand itself, but they actually aren't an RR affiliate any longer. They'll be discontinuing their use of the RR brand sometime soon, I'm told.
I do know that AT&T was really impressed with the way RR did business. Their @home offering is just ridiculous compared to RR. They thought they could just have this big cable modem operation by bringing in a bunch of 3rd party vendors to build the shit, drop it in place and it would just run... NOT. When they saw how RR does things, I think they realized how aweful their operation was. I even heard that @home was giving customers static ip addresses in some divisions (don't know if this is still the cast)... While that may sound attractive to end users who want to run servers, what they don't realize is that it pretty much prevents growth. When utilization in a particular area grows, you need to be able to split the area up, which requires an ip renumber. If you can't renumber because everyone has a static, pretty soon the area is going to get horribly oversold resulting in super-slow access.
So, as far as how it affects RR users, it shouldn't, really. I suspect RR is just going to be another service offering, so it will be one of your choices of ISP's, pretty much. The worst case basis is that RR simply becomes a delivery vehicle for aol... *%!$ that noise...
CNN (Score:3, Flamebait)
This also isn't a merger so much as it is one large company buying a share of the assets of another. The rest of AT&Ts opperations would be seperate.
+5 for this?!? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Neither is Netscape which is also a subsidiary and isn't part of their name either. I thought it was quite obvious that the name was a joke and they main point of it was to show how big AOL Time Warner is getting.
This also isn't a merger so much as it is one large company buying a share of the assets of another. The rest of AT&Ts opperations would be seperate.
Exactly where is it mentioned that this is a merger? It is mentioned in the Slashdot blurb as well as the linked article that AOL is attempting to buy AT&T's cable network. The slashdot blurb jokes that at the current rate AOL Time Warner will soon own everything except for Microsoft.
I am completely stunned by the fact that not only could you post a comment that implies you don't get what are obvious exagerrations used in a humorous context but the fact that your post is at +5 indicates that a bunch of slashdotters don't either.
Would this purchase really be bad for the market? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for weather it's good for consumers: well, market forces have acted to consolidate ISPs throughout the world. This isn't just a U.S. phenomenon. Perhaps the minimum efficient scale of this kind of service is similar to that of telephone service (vary large). We've learned from the past 100 years that regulation of monopolies isn't *always* a good thing. There are certain natural monopolies in free markets. We have seen this in telephone service, where we tried to regulate a natural monopoly out of existance, then after those regulations were eliminated - at a time when there were several large competitors in the market - a consolidation took place, not because of anti-competitive practices of one player, but because it was more efficient to do business on a larger scale than any on the indevidual players were able to do in their form at that time.
The same might be said of the internet access market. Given the bariers to entry, (exhorbinnet infastructure cost, support costs, etc.) it might be more cost effective to operate on a vary large scale, rather than have many small competitors in the merket. Just look to the DSL service provider market for evidence of this. Independant DSL service providers have been going under right left and center. This is not because of anti-competitive practices, or pricing; it's because they weren't able to cost effectively manage infastructure and support. Perhaps this market is simply a natural monopoly and the free markets are moving to increase efficiency.
Or onthe other hand, it could be a massive conspiracy... which I grant you would make for a better story, but just isn't true.
--CTH
Re:Would this purchase really be bad for the marke (Score:2)
AT+T's theory was that they were the bluest of the blue chips and they would be able to carry all that debt without a problem. When the dotcom bubble deflated, it turned out they were very wrong.
Cable Internet is probably not a super-profitable business, but it does get the TV subscription rates up. And once you have 'digital cable' installed, you are more likely to do the things that make them the real money -- premium channels, PPV, etc. (And eventually local telephone services, maybe.)
The upshot is that it you are probably right -- it will take very large diversified companies to effectively pay off the infrastructure costs without being swamped. The real moral of the story is that running a wire into everyone's house for a luxury service is a bad idea -- which is why you'll never see fiber-to-the-curb. Expect the next great build-outs to wireless only.
Re:CNN (Score:2)
First of all, I'd like to agree with you on this one; I own a few shares of T and think that selling the cable unit would be a disaster. I lack your confidence in the matter, however. AT&T is strapped for cash, and they've been known to do some surprisingly stupid things. I think that the major barrier preventing a sale is going to be a failure to agree on price, not some philisophical opposition to selling the cable unit. Remember, even if AT&T doesn't sell the cable assets to Cablevision/AOL/etc, the current plan still involves spinning them off for cash.
But it sure does make a good /. knee-jerk fest to make it sound like the borg is forming around AT&T and AOL/TW, doesn't it?
Not at all. It is a big deal for a couple of reasons. First of all, the fact that AOLTW is considering this sale means that they have some confidence in their ability to circumvent existing cable ownership limits. That's no good, and is worthy of some attention, I would think.
Secondly, even if AOLTW doesn't wind up with AT&T's cable assets at this point, it's entirely possible (read likely) that they may end purchasing some interest eventually. That's a bad thing for consumers, as it places a huge number of TV sets under AOLTWs expanding influence.
Finally, I think it's important that people pay attention to every merger or talk of merger that could potentially affect their lives. The fact of the matter is, AOLTW is already a sort of borg, controlling a lot of assets. And it seems interested in assimilating more. So the "slashdot's making a big deal outa nothing" response seems a little bit careless.
you forgot yahoo! (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/who
Forget Microsoft. Fear AOL.
Re:you forgot yahoo! (Score:2, Funny)
Some guy [networksolutions.com] already registered aoltimewarnermicrosoft.com [aoltimewar...rosoft.com]. Wonder if his investment will pay off.
Re:you forgot yahoo! (Score:2)
Or just wait until they merge (and then you'll REALLY have something to fear).
Re:you forgot yahoo! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm going to register aoltimewarneryahooattibmcompaqhpmicrosoftyahoodel
America: a history of capitalist communism.
i'm just wondering (Score:2, Funny)
The law (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws against monopolies are great, but if nobody bothers to enforce them, they are USELESS.
Would somebody please explain this to governments around the world? One day the companies will be TOO BIG to enforce anything upon! If one company owns, say 75% of the media, they can make AND break poloticians because this company OWNS the public opnion (sad but true).
Re:The law (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true, governments have guns. I doubt seriously any business is going to be able to fight that.
Plus wonderful countries like Brazil and South Africa are starting the horrendous trend of taking property and intellectual rights from corporations. They usually use the phrase "for the good of the people" but it simply proves business are subject to governments.
Re:The law (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true, governments have guns. I doubt seriously any business is going to be able to fight that.
Why would business need guns when it can manipulate governments into using guns for them? It's not like this doesn't happen already (and hasn't been happening for at least decades).
Plus wonderful countries like Brazil and South Africa are starting the horrendous trend of taking property and intellectual rights from corporations.
"Taking them", or taking them back? In any case, that's not exactly "starting the
You've heard of "privatization", right? That's where a corporation takes over a government function, and proves that they're at least as good at running a bureaucracy as a government is, and even better at making sure as few benefits as possible get to the people who pay for them.
Governments? Corporations? Two sides of same intentionally-devalued coin. A pox on both their houses.
Re:The law (Score:2, Informative)
http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v9/9.06/7genocid
Re:The law (Score:2)
I'll take corporations over government any day. Corporations can't hire an army and force me to buy their product, or force the competitors out of business.
Corporations aren't legally bound to serve anyone except their stockholders. Most governments have to at least pay lip-service to serving its citizens. Corporations don't even have to do that. Also, I don't have to own shares in my government to take part in its voting system.
Re:The law (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally, a corporation will cease to exist if it fails to provide value to its customers. This, of course, assumes that the marketplace works. Monopolies (see MS, AOLTW, AT&T, Verizon, etc) tend to prevent the marketplace from working in this manner.
Most governments have to at least pay lip-service to serving its citizens. Corporations don't even have to do that.
What rock have you been living under? Do the governments of China, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Cuba pay even lip-service to serving their citizens? If they do, it is nominal at best. Most of the world is not free.
Also, I don't have to own shares in my government to take part in its voting system.
No, you don't have to own shares in the government (a voluntary activity). But if you don't pay your taxes, you will eventually be labelled a felon, and you will thus lose your right to vote. (Note that the IRS claims that the US tax system is voluntary. As noted above, you can "volunteer" to pay taxes, or you can "volunteer" to go to jail.) It is also quite difficult in many areas of the country to vote if you are homeless or transient.
As for the previous poster's comment about corporations not being able to hire armies: what is to stop them? Why couldn't MS hire some goons, buy weaponry (guns, ammo, artillery, tanks, missiles, and a few helicopters), and take over a small country (like Australia)?
Re:The law (Score:2)
Well except for the Mafia and some of the Columbian Drug Cartel...
Then of course the United States has been in Iraq for the past 10 years because of our corporate interests.
Re:The law (Score:2)
I believe the oil companies routinely hire mercenaries to protect their operations in some crappy countries too.
(Yes, there really is a mercenary business!)
Re:The law (Score:2)
If it weren't for the fact that corporate donations buy elections for their favorite candidates, I could probably run for office tomorrow and change all that. It is/was a democratic government. I wonder if it were replaced by corporations.....would I be able to run for CEO? If by some miracle I could, that would be some democracy. I'd be the first dictator of a free country in the world!
/sarcasm
Re:The law (Score:2)
Bzzt! Wrong. This title has already been taken. I'm not sure if he was the first to manage this feat, but:
Germany was a "free country" when the Nazi party was elected into the second largest position in the German government in 1930 [historyplace.com].
Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor in 1933 [historyplace.com] as part of a change of government that was within the law.
Within weeks he became dictator of a "free country".
(Obviously you can't be dictator of a free country as it becomes non-free after the installation of a dictator, but that's a separate matter.)
Re:The law (Score:2)
That is why countries with majority GDP generated by private enterprises generally do much worse than government-controlled economies
(a) GDP is a piss-poor measure of how much better or worse an economy is doing, though it's useful as a statistic to manipulate public policy with. (b) There is very little true "private enterprise" happening, and effectively none that corporations are involved with. (Despite the lip-service their spokesdroids pay to the concept, and the success they've had encouraging people to confuse it with what corporations do.)
Adam Smith disliked the corporations that existed at the time he wrote Wealth of Nations and I have little doubt that he would despise the ones that exist now.
Re:The law (Score:2)
Whatever...
Semantics aside
The "semantics" are not an aside. The distinctions are actually very important.
do you see people migrating in large numbers FROM the countries with huge private (or corporate) enterprise or is it the other way around?
If people had a choice between life imprisonment and death row, I think I know which I would see many people choose.
Anyhow, what people often move to avoid -- when they can -- are too often the negative costs of corporatism that corporations externalize whenever they can. Externalizing costs whenever possible improves the bottom line, which is the only goal of corporations
Re:The law (Score:2)
Intellectual property is to property as fools gold is to gold. I am under no obligation to *not* use the information that I know - and certainly not in the face of my dying countrymen. You have got to be kidding - moreover, you must also believe the BULLSHIT sold to you about R&D by BigPharm - they spend FAR AND AWAY more money on marketing than they do R&D.. a great deal of that is to win mindshare of opinions like yours. What they do spend on R&D is subsidized by grants and tax breaks.
They usually use the phrase "for the good of the people" but it simply proves business are subject to governments.
You must be American - unlike America, the rest of the world's communities like to share with one another. Its simple. "Good for the people" means "Taking from the Rich" in America, where "sharing" is unknown. It really is that fucking simple. You know, we all live a more stable, secure, enriched, rewarding, fruitful, happy life if we think about our communities instead of ourselves for a minute - cynics will say it is naive - but unless you stop foaming at the mouth, bearing down with all your might to exploit at every opportunity, no one else will either... and you'll be force to live in a community of rabid, hysterical chaos of thieves (capitalists), cheats(corrupt-republicrat-plutocratic-politician
you really dont have to look much further than Modern America(TM). The RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/NAWCAT/BigThree/BigPharm/Repu
If you disagree, I have a lovely Church/King/Fascist/Plutocratic(present america?)/Military run system Id like to discuss with you... we'll then let *you* pick.
Re:The law (Score:2)
There are other, more effective, forms of "sharing" than massive government programs funded by forcible confiscation of wealth. You might want to examine this report [fraserinstitute.ca], which states that Americans donate to charity much more generously than do Canadians. Note particularly the conclusion that "those who have more, give more".
The 'good of all' does always outweigh the 'good of the few'. That is the definition of community and democracy.
No, that is the definition of tyranny. When 51% of the voters can deprive the other 49% of their life, liberty, or property, you do not have a free country.
Companies do have guns (Score:2)
Re:The law (Score:2)
"Beware foreign entanglements."
G. Washington
Re:The law (Score:2)
Re:The law (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There are no laws... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There are no laws... (Score:2)
Well, if this is the case, Id like to stand up and suggest that they *should be*. I have no interest in being a servant to monopolies - nor do I have interest in being a martyr (like living in the bush without electricity to avoid the power company).
Most people would agree - and guess what, in a democracy, people make the laws of the land... even those that affect the economy (*gasp*). I suggest when a market doesn't have fair competition it should:
A) be 'bought' by the government and offered as a non-profit public service (because the free-market 'advantages' are not at work.. and they are the purpose of this whole capitalism thing (as far as the citizens are concerned))
B) be broken into competing business to encourage/stimulate competition, price movements, innovation.
People have been so polluted by corporate-speak media that they actually feel it is not 'right' to enact law that might effect the economy - free markets rule today - and democracy can take a back seat... "Power" should exist in no entity that is not democratically* elected.
Bollocks to that mess: see here friends [protest.net]
*as in 'real' democracy, not the circus of smoke and mirrors that the Plutocrats of USofAmerica organize every couple years...
Re:There are no laws... (Score:2)
Re:There are no laws... (Score:2)
The USA is not and never has been a democracy- its a republic. Pretty big difference.
America is a Republic in this sense:
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
Each independant 'autonomous territiorial unit' is a democracy in itself.
Please, if you want to debate symantics, be honest about it...
Re:The law (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Why are laws against monopolies good? Do you have any support/reasoning/justification, or is this an example of you regurgitating what the "mainstream media" says without any independent thought? Most companies obtain monopoly status by being the best at what they do. This obviously does not apply to telecom/cable/etc. as they were setup by the government to run as monopolies in order to make it cost effective at the time. Personally, I'd have rather waited a little longer for someone to figure out a way to reduce the sunk costs of building such a system, apply it in the market and make a profit.
3. Have you considered subscribing to "alternative" publications so that you might obtain a different point of view? Maybe you should even read something that you violently disagree with? This can help give you perspective and understanding that there are often people with views different than your own with their well considered set of reasons and justifications.
4. Fight fire with fire. Buy AOL-TimeWarner. Or more reasonably, buy a share of AOL-Time Warner, stand up at the annual shareholder's meeting, state your opinion and wage a proxy war against the company.
ffoiii
Re:The law (Score:2)
And if the other 25% is all owned by Giant Company #2?
Next thing you know (Score:2)
Re:The law (Score:2)
Absolutely!
When you dominate public opinion, when you are the SOLE arbiter of public discourse, you set the frame of debate, you define all the 'truisms' and allow your 'pundits' to repeat the same unimportant facets of a story over and over and over and over until there is no overcoming the apathy that has been built into the public psyche w/ regards to your issue-du-jour.
I am overwhelmed by the sheer lack of public awareness of all things around them. People have such a shallow understanding of the issues presented to them in the 'Television News' that I am astounded that no one questions its validity - so few people are upset that the media dosnt discuss the GROWING concern of media concentration, plutocratic/corrupt government, American militarism (and how it is used as a tool by American Business), the deafening silence about ECHELON in the USA (surprise! Surprise! Secret industrial-espionage system is being hushed-up by those who wield/benefit from it!), the lack of REAL political debate (republican/democrat domination of politics in america for the last 150 years - that situation is TRULY astonishing, has no one had a good-idea in the last 150 years or have they simply been marginalized by colluding business partners/politicians(really the same thing..)).
Am i paranoid? No. Am i a radical? Yes. The status-quo is building up methods to maintain its domination (allowing mega-super-mergers of this nature) in the face of growing discontent and mistrust. The government - under the direction of the powerful/rich - are not paying attention to the fact that the people are dissatisfied with the present state. People KNOW that the US government is BOUGHT AND PAID-FOR , there is no opposing voice because the 5th Estate (media) is now a mouth piece for said establishment.
In the 60's people raged in the streets, opposing the McCarthy-Inspired aggression in Vietnam && systemic racism.. those people *did* manage to create change - but fell sadly short of a lot of their goals, which was to change the structure from preventing these abuses in future... now weve come again to a place where people - The Anti-Capitalists who now Rage in the Streets [protest.net] - demand change in the face of unjust politics. Join them. Support them. Defend their ideals - these people (myself) included want a democracy restored - freed of capitalist domination of All Things.
There was a time (pre-Regan) where there were effectual regulation that prevented this kind of stifling 'oneness' of voice powered by moneyed-interests in the media - those days are gone... if the Americans dont want to live in a terrifying future of numbness and malaise ala the worst of Fahrenheit 451, I suggest *you* do something about your government.
I hope to hell you do - because the "american empire" is real and powerful, it dosnt so much prove the 'rightness' of your 'system' as it shows, like every empire before it, that history and circumstance makes interesting times - it is truly funny that a people who claim to be the height of democracy and 'open-ness' can really be at the fore-front of this modern delusion. What you are witnessing people, is a very important time in history - people will either look back at this time as an era where people *finally* woke up to discover the Capitalist, King or Church always enslave or a great sleep enters the people as there kept fat, happy and stupid (think bread and circuses)... a dystopian dark age... I sincerely hope its the former.
Re:The law (Score:2)
These people are against "something" without offering any alternatives whatsoever.
They (I) am/are for:
equality
economic sustainability
true, community-based & participatory democracy
environmental preservation
Blind Justice
Economic 'fairness', modern riches should be shared by all in a reasonable manner. True economic equality is an unmanageable burden (simple administrative problems) but no person should be able to steal $5-10-200 million while people starve all over the world, people toil in dangerous jobs, people don't have access to basic medial treatments. Its disgusting and inhuman.
Insert other social-justice issues here that arent being addressed by the worlds governments, instead they race to the bottom in their service to their undemocratic corporate masters.
This is anarchy - Anarchy does *NOT* mean chaos. Anarchists assert that governments, of all manner, are oppressors. Some people have an issue with being oppressed - thankfully some of us (myself) do feel it reasonable to accept the reasonable bounds of community in exchange for security (vs. mad-max lawless-ness)
or at least immaturity at its best. - Thats pretty cynical isnt it? Never mind having goals, accept and exploit the present condition for yourself, you cannot change the system. Everybody sing: I fought the law and the law won... Does this make you comfortable? It sickens me to no end. I will not end the struggle until the world is as i wish - I may be wrong in some respects, but I am principled. I will not die an lonely, empty shell of self-serving greed.
Why would I join people like that?
odds are our *goals* are the same, the methods to achieve these goals are what is at debate. It is easily provable that the present 'free-market Capitalist system is failing to deliver the goals of the majority, it should be adjusted significantly to afford everyone the ability to meet these goals. There is no reason to let 99% of your country to suffer while a few become increasingly powerful and wealthy.
These sorts of regulations and increased intrusion of the government into our lives will be our downfall
This is a very unique American perspective - you do realize, that your government, if it wasn't so corrupt, and your neighbours (as yourself) weren't so complacent to this corruption that it would truly be a democratic and responsive body. ONLY BECAUSE YOU fear and loathe it does it become as it is now. When your democratically elected officials have widdled away the 'bounds' that it can operate, when it has sold enough of itself so thoroughly, when Private, Moneyed Interests declare the rules - and you have no legal recourse - will you understand that your government is a collection of your neighbours, meaning to exercise their will (and yours) and that a 'Corporate Government' is none at all. Americans will, if they havent been completely zombie-ized by television and the Consumer-ism Religion's lies - start another revolution. Be certain that the status quo will be as one voice opposing these heretics... the question is will the fathers of the next revolution be able to break through the apathy and fear of the public (of this future) and be able to engage these people with 'other-than-self-serving and grand' ideals... the same ones that started The First American Revolution.
No, it is you who is delusional.
Every looked at this whole "mess" from that angle ?
are you suggesting that I am manufacturing this myself? well, maybe... but dismissing it offhand, as you attempt to, by suggesting I am paranoid is a little flippant, no? My point (in this case) was that your rulers are not 'open' and 'accountable' as a democratic body should be... why do you accept that they keep secrets? Who are they keeping them from? for instance,have you been paying attention [washingtonpost.com]? This is an EXACT example of the problem that I was addressing.... Am I making this UP?
Re:The law (Score:2)
Politicians here don't fear pissing off CEOs as much as they fear pissing off reporters. Witness the media versus Brian Mulroney.
40% Stake (Score:3, Informative)
"Citing ``people familiar with the situation,'' the paper said AOL would hold a 40 percent interest in the business and leave AT&T with the majority control it wants.
So AOL/TW won't get the entire AT&T cable market, just part of it.
Yet another reason I use ADSL.
Re:40% Stake (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but in a publicly owned company, percentage share IS ownership. The outright monopoly is naturally 51%, but 40% is pretty much running the show.
DSL (Score:2)
Plenty of us on cable modems used be on xDSL, before the DSL companies started dropping like flies.
After two providers died without warning, and my account was sold to different ISPs a couple of times, I decided on cable because cable companies have apparently figured out that you need to MAKE money in order to stay in business.
Don't get me wrong, I'd certainly rather have DSL, but I need reliability above all. If and when I ever get DSL again, I'll be keeping the cable modem as well as a backup.
Life imitates art (Score:4, Insightful)
Why'd they stop? 'Cause all the "dark future" stuff they read about kept coming true! Reality TV, Corporate owned gov'ments, cameras in your toliet...Gee, I guess we really do live in interesting [tuxedo.org] times.
It's a Brave New 1984.
In the USA (Score:2, Interesting)
AOL is the internet (to most people)
Time/Warner is entertainment (to most people)
CNN is news (to most people)
Netscape is the browser (or used to be...)
ATT is long-distance phone service (to most people)
hmmm.....
Why not buy Microsoft (they are computing to most people)
Re:In the USA (Score:2)
Re: Major netscape release (Score:2)
Netscape 6.1 (released last month) is effectively the *first* release of the new, mozilla-based, rewritten from scratch, standards compliant, stable, fast, skinnable, netscape browser.
You can argue about "fast" (depends on your computer - it flies on mine) and it's certainly not "lean and mean" but it certainly counts as a major release.
I say "effectively the first" because 6.0 was, by all accounts, a complete disaster. While Netscape's official corporate position is still "it was the right product at the right time", even their own developers unofficially admit that this is only because they had to release *something* before they became completely irrelevant. 6.1 is what 6.0 should have been.
Now, I don't know whether their market share has increased due to 6.1 or not (ime 6.0 caused such a backlash that a lot of people are simply not willing to give 6.1 a chance, and those are by definition the people that were willing to give netscape a chance a year ago) but it's simply not true to claim that there hasn't been a major netscape release since june of last year. 6.1 is imho the most significant netscape release since 4.5 (which was the equivalent point in the 4.x series - previous 4.xs sucked in the same way 6.0 did, 4.5 was the first decent release)
Re: Major netscape release (Score:2)
No offense or anything, but what the hell is this supposed to mean? 6.0 sucked, so you're just gonna pretend it didn't happen?
When I say "major release", I'm referring to version number - that's why they're called "major" and "minor" numbers. I don't consider 6.1 to be a major release, as many bugs as it may have fixed, for the same reason that I don't consider IE 5.5 a major release. If Netscape had sat on their hands until the 6.1 codebase was ready, then called that 6.1, I'd be agreeing with you. Hell, they could call the new version 7.0 if they wanted, except that it would be tantamount to admitting that 6.0 was a dog.
Finally, as an afterthought on speed: I tried and quickly buried NS 6.0. Since then, I stuck with Mozilla builds, until I finally got tired of the waiting game and migrated to MSIE on Windows, and Konqueror on Linux. I'm due to take another look soon, but at the time, no version of Mozilla yet built could compare speedwise to either of those alternatives.
Re: Major netscape release (Score:2)
what's the big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
And as far as size goes, there are plenty of companies out there that would dwarf AOLTW...some people need to calm down and take a look at the world before freaking out...
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:2)
I'm also not thrilled about the idea of a single company controlling such a vast percentage of content and news production, TV distribution and Internet service. If AOLTW weren't a media company, and therefore so able to influence the popular mindset, I wouldn't sweat it so much. But the truth is, AOLTW and its components have shown their willingness to sacrifice just about anything to profits-- including objective news reporting, open access, etc. Such behavior is probably natural for a [very aggressive] corporation, but it's not in our best interest as citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is not some evil scheming thing. Yes, this is a sane, valid, sensible business choice, and what AOL/TW would be expected to do. It's still really bad. AOL/TW is quite simply not to be trusted with that kind of market power. Not that they're evil or shifty; just that they're human. Just that that is too much power, too much control, too much influence, and in my opinion at least it is simply not safe to allow that much influence to be collected into one entity. And that AOL/TW has given [me, us] no reason to believe that they are (or will remain) responsible enough to use that power and influence in wholly responsible ways. And that whether or not the potential abuses of AOL/TW/AT&T (or even the current AOL/TW) were (are) to materialize, if those potential abuses do begin to slowly be implemented then there will be literally nothing in place to stop them.
Power Corrupts. I wish more people still believed that..
as far as size goes, there are plenty of companies out there that would dwarf AOLTW..
size, yes. both in terms of employee and $ power, yes, there are larger companies. However, two things:
First off, the issues are not with the simple size of this company, but about the strength and kinds of the leverage it would have. This is not about horizontal market power, although in some specific markets the resulting bethemoth would have LOTS of horizontal power; this is about vertical market power. Anyone alarmed is not alarmed by its mere strength, but by the huge number of markets that it has strength in.
Secondly, i for one am alarmed by a really large media company far more than i am by a really large steel company, simply because from watching current events it would seem to me that media companies are actively threatening my constitutional rights. The companies in the exact spaces that AOL/TW is in seem, to me, currently to be the only groups who are poised, willing, and actively trying to invade my personal privacy and freedom in ways that make me uncomfortable. There are lots of steel companies much "bigger" than AOL/TW, but the steel companies aren't the one paying elected representatives to support things like the SSSCA. (Of course, were i a union laborer my view of the steel companies would surely be different. And those steel companies are surely paying those same elected representatives to produce things like corporate welfare and lax environmental regulations. However, this does not change the fact that raw size goes a LOT further with media than it does with heavy industries.)
p.s.: if my english is a bit garbled this morning, please excuse me. low amounts of sleep longwinded + run-on sentences... [slurrring]tha'sallthankyu.
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:2)
mo·nop·o·ly (Score:2)
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
How much of America's opinions are based on what they see on television? How many trust the news media? If they don't believe what they see on CNN where do they go for another opinion, AOL?
With media centralizing aroung AOL/TW and expanding its collective influence with yet another company the size of AT&T it is not the overall size of the company that matters, but the audience it reaches. I consider the effect of a single media entity's influence on the majority of Americans a very big deal indeed.
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to say, this whole saga sounds so much like AOL etc. _daring_ the government to stop them. They can't quite believe they're getting away with it but hey, if they can buy the world before anyone notices and complains then they might as well give it a try...
Someone _really_ needs some backbone to stand up to this, it's ridiculous. A company like this would have so much power it isn't funny and they need stopping. From a shareholder point of view, a company this large would likely be quite unwieldy and so probably wouldn't be as good value as the individuals currently are collectively.
Except look at the current 'business friendly' Whitehouse. Oh well, better luck in 2004, guys.
Re:Come and have a go if you think you're hard eno (Score:2)
Cue the anarchist terrorists with stolen ex-Soviet antitank weapons...
Re:Come and have a go if you think you're hard eno (Score:2)
It is going to take more than 3 years for the Americans to start voting, and demanding democratic reforms, that will enable them to re-ignite their democracy. The Republicrats have been colluding to exclude all others for 150 years - why does it matter who they elect, there will be no change from either party... nothing of consequence... maybe they'll debate about education reform or public health care - yet again...
The entire political system is so corrupt (literally) that it is an outright sham(e).
Re:Come and have a go if you think you're hard eno (Score:3, Funny)
2004? What the hell are you talking about? The next election is in 1984. I hear Reagan is going to promise no new taxes, and...
Oh, wait, your right, it is 2001. Sorry, with everything going on over here, I got a little confused.
Re:Come and have a go if you think you're hard eno (Score:2)
"We" as in "The people who manipulated the votes and intentionally miscounted ballots"? SCNR...
Vocabularizing. (Score:2, Funny)
"electional"? Is that from the George W. Bush dictionary?
Sounds more like Al Sharpton to me. "And things done got full of electional corrupticizing, ya-yus."
--saint
Re:Monopolies are legal, dude. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's this little mom & pop operation called Nike (I know, you probably haven't heard of them) that does just that.
-Legion
Re:Monopolies are legal, dude. (Score:2, Insightful)
poor MS (Score:2, Funny)
send contributions via paypal.
hewpaq (Score:2)
When do corporations become governments? (Score:2)
Re:When do corporations become governments? (Score:2)
The goals of the corporation are to increase shareholder value.
The goals of the government (ostensibly) are the goals of the people. (I know, it doesn't always work out like this...)
-sam
Re:When do corporations become governments? (Score:2)
Who owns what (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who owns what (Score:2, Insightful)
some good articles... (Score:2, Informative)
Why Broadband Is So Narrow? [forbes.com]
where the state of broadband is discussed in good detail. In fact, this month's issue of Forbes ASAP [forbes.com] had a few articles (check the first 4 listed starting at Internet II in particular) discussing the current viability of broadband, future implications of Internet II, how the Internet should grow in the future, and how the government should help its growth.
I don't know enough about the current situation regarding these topics to make intelligent comments about it, but these articles IMO did a good job painting the current picture. I HIGHLY suggest these articles for anyone not familiar with the current nightmare growing in broadband regulation/deregulation, the growth of the net, and DSL vs. Cable Modem providers.
t.
The Onion predicted this years ago... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though, in the timeline for the roleplaying game Cyberpunk [talsorian.com], corporations successfully lobbied for a federal law deputizing their security officers to enforce the law within corporate controlled "security zones" (city business districts, company owned housing developments, etc). How long before that happens for real?
Re:The Onion predicted this years ago... (Score:2)
Re:The Onion predicted this years ago... (Score:2)
if this goes thru (Score:3, Funny)
Zappa said it (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the American dream. From idea to hardware. (Score:2)
But not all the way down to the hardware it would run on. There are sensible reasons why you're not likely to ever see them bid on shares of Intel any time soon.
As the automotive industry has shown, in hard or unstettled time, that's just not a good idea. If you fall out of favor at anypoint in the chain ("We don't like < whatever > !") the entire chain falters.
Why do you think the vehicle manufacturers don't make tires? If Ford couldn't sell cars because of Firestone's bad press, (or Ford Tire Company's bad press,) a third of the automotive production capacity of the Western world be dead in the water. One faulty tire making machine spewing out substandard product could idle hundreds of thousands of people and cause economic dislocation greater than the GNP of many nations (combined!)
Only in the area of operating systems (I won't quibble about the operating part,) do we have such a ridiculous concentration of supply versus demand with just ONE supplier having acquired, by successive illegal and anti-competetive means, 85% of the total market.
When the patforms shifts to 64-bits and implements bio-metric security, the 85% will find themselves hamstrung in their efforts to improve their lot.
Luckily, M$ can't get in where security is an issue. NO company, NO country is going to risk using M$ anything in contracts where they have to garantee 99.999999% up time or face the consequences. (M$ Outlook crashes on me almost EVERY time I use it. Its the only piece of M$ software in my house and I use it to remind myself of how bad their products are.)
"Starwars" and the Missile Condom" will be the death of M$ if you play it right. Linux is hard to hack and much more reliable. Prove it (with help from ths NSA, etc) and the rewards will be truly great.
NAWCAT won't own eBay (Score:2)
Hey, whatever happened to pithy wit?
Commercial Imperium (Score:2, Interesting)
Salmon Rushdie suggests hopefully that there are no tyrannies that cannot be successfully resisted....
He cannot have considered a financial rather than a political/military one.
Political/military tyrannies give in exchange little or nothing; the thinnest illusion of security for their license to pillage and enslave.
By the innovation of offering a miserable amount of money outright thievery and slavery is given the imprimatur of laws and contracts. An illusion is created of acceptance by all parties almost disguising the fact that the various forms of slavery cannot be distinguished from each other by the pittance paid.
With indecent dishonesty, the few can obtain with deceit what would likely be unobtainable by force or coercion. This innovation is clearly the most profound of the Twentieth Century, far beyond semiconductors, air travel and automobiles.
Unlike the flesh-and-blood tyrant, the deathless corporation extends itself endlessly into all dimensions.
A new guide-book is in order, to suggest how to resist an organism that masquerades in providing as little as possible of what the slaves think they want. Of course arrogance (and hubris) will likely see a final resolution in the streets....Perhaps Rushdie is right after all.
Push for a MUD! (Score:2, Interesting)
Call me a socialist? Well you get two choices these days, unfettered capitalism building monopolies more powerful then most nations or capitalism held on a leash by prevailing socialism. If a corporation grows too powerfull and holds a monopoly it should get taken by the people with the power of eminent domain.
Actually.... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one of the simplest economical rules, which Marx (and I guess Adam Smith as well) had already pointed out, and not much has changed since then in that respect. The big corporations can make better use of that dough instead.
Re:More important issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I read slashdot cause I like perspective. I use Windows. I use Linux. I know heaps about Windows. I know heaps about Unix. I program under Windows. I program under Unix.
I get angry when I read obviously brainwashed posts. Even if we just talk about the software world, there are companies that are just as devious as Microsoft (only not as big - therefore not as noticable). Ever heard of Sun or Oracle? They're just as much a threat as Microsoft is. In the past, all they've cared about is making big money from big companies - they never cared about the little guys with PCs at home. In the end, Microsoft's and Gate's charitable donations are to important things (health, education, third worlds). I can't remember the last time McNeally or Ellison doing that. The last big thing Ellison bought was prolly a new jet plane.
By talking about Microsoft as if they're some kind of 'evil' entity, you make belittle the real problems.
And BTW, slashdot is supposed to be "news for nerds". Not "news for geeks". Discussions that aren't computer related somehow end up bashing Microsoft. It's childish.
M$ and its economic imperatives are a big part of (Score:2)
M$ grew to its present size by using techniques worthy of "Tony Soprano."
Jus't because they grew big doesn't mean that its good. Not for them and not for anyone else.
Right now the PC sales slump (negative growth!) means vastly reduced sale cashflow. Their products are not so useful or so unusable that they can coerce replacement. I know a financial firm using DOS to run their Fax sever. I know someone using Windows 3.11. That's all he needs. I know people using Windows '95 or '98. It came with the PC, it works well enough and that's where they'll stay. Who's got money to waste?
In nature/agriculture a monopoly is called a monoculture and its particularly vulnerable to changed environments conditions, pests and parasites. (Computing equivalent: Change of platform, script-kiddies and viri?)
In economics it called a monopoly and needs special safeguards placed on it before it restricts trade in other areas of the economy.
Not only can M$ cause inflation strictly through greed, endanger its users through its constant lagging in implementing security (I don't think Symantec "et alia", are worried about being made unnecessary,) but its ability to usurp other people's innovations to fold it into Windows is a powerful disincentive to development.
Re:More important issues (Score:2)
how about NAW - CAnT? (Score:2)
Ximian's response (Score:2)
Lameness
Re:Microsoft is not who you should be worring abou (Score:2)
AOL is a big ISP in some European countries, but nowhere near the biggest.
Time Warner isn't important outside the US.
Most people in Europe don't even know CNN exists.
Netscape is mostly gone anyway.
AT&T isn't important in Europe.
Microsoft is more dangerous - they own a huge market share pretty much anywhere in the world.
Ideally, boycott both - but killing Microsoft is more important.
Re:Microsoft is not who you should be worring abou (Score:2)
What?
What again?
Re:Microsoft is not who you should be worring abou (Score:2)
AFAIK current versions of M$IE take you to msn.com immediately (controlling information). Thanks to Smart Tags(tm), they'll provide you with whatever related information they see fit, even if you avoid accessing msn.com.
By attempting to monopolize M$IE and Media Player, they control how you receive information. Once they've succeeded killing of competitors, they'll add censoring of "dangerous" websites (e.g. linux.org, redhat.com) to their monopolist information access kit.
Re:It's not scary yet... (Score:2)
Do oil mercenaries [ucsd.edu] count?
Re:It's not scary yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
And the whole "I'm going to invade because I've got a historical claim to your land" is more than slightly destabilizing; if allowed to stand as precedent, probably just about every reasonably-old nation on Earth could use that as an excuse. That situation might make enormous amounts of money in the short term for the US (being the world's leading provider of small arms, IIRC), but isn't desirable from, oh, just about any other point of view.
Oh, and it also wouldn't have helped if Israel decided it a) had been abandoned by its one historical major ally, b) was surrounded by people obsessed with killing them, and c) was facing a madman with a rather large army, chemical-weapon warhead artillery, and a nuclear ambition. Given that Israel is thought to be a nuclear power, after all.
Re:The United States of AmericaOnline (Score:2)
At least it's still called America Online in other parts of the world; while the US is being replaced by a huge congolmerate so is the rest of the desireable earth.
Re:Alright.... (Score:2, Insightful)
> a company that would challenge Microsoft.
This is great news for all of us. We finally have a company that would challenge IBM. - Me, you, everyone, about 12 years ago.
In reality (Score:2)
I wanna see more conglomerates splitting apart into seperate companies that each to their thing well without the massive overhead of being a small cog in a huge inefficent machine.
Oh, and death to CorporateSpeak as well!
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Who?? (Score:2)