AOL Nation 597
The first media call came in at 7 a.m., a producer at ABC Radio News waking me up to ask if I had any thoughts about the announcement that Time Warner and America Online had just decided to merge into a $350 billion company. The second call came from the BBC, then the Associated Press.
The fourth was from a Boston Globe reporter asking if I could comment on IBM's announcement that it was taking major steps to make Linux a centerpiece of its computer hardware strategy, the biggest embrace yet of Open Source by a major computer maker.
The juxtaposition of the two announcements was almost Biblical in its symbolism and significance:
If Microsoft turns out to be guilty of anti-trust violations for seeking to dominate the Web browser market and discouraging innovation and competition, then the Time-Warner-AOL merger seems dramatically more serious in its potential consequences, not only for consumers but for a competitive new media environment. In fact, the accusations against Microsoft seem trivial when weighed against the impact of the mega-merger announced yesterday.
The cornerstone of anti-trust law -- and the idea behind a free press -- is that the individual citizen/consumer benefits from openness, choice and diversity of expression and opinion. The impact of mergers like this is to deny choice, concentrate power and homogenize creativity and expression. Many of us are free marketers here, and we like the booming global economy. But there are limits. Steve Case and Gerald Levin have broached them. At some point, Americans have to decide if they still want a free information culture, along with a functioning government. Or not.
AOL and Time-Warner wouldn't just be creating another media company, but an information nation. This company would be much larger in cultural influence and economic power than most countries on the earth. Time-Warner/AOL would become the largest media "content provider" on the planet, a hybrid conglomerate ranging from movies to magazines to messaging and conferencing systems to online services to cable systems linking AOL's (and Compuserve's) 20 million subscribers. This would create the world's largest media platform for the purpose of what drooling Wall Street analysts like to describe as "cross-fertilization with content." For anyone who doesn't know what that means, the translation is simple: monopolize both content and the means to transmit it.
The move represents the most sweeping move yet by corporate conglomerates to control high-speed access to the Internet and to dominate its content. Ironically, it threatens to further pressure Microsoft, whose bumbling efforts to expand into new media now appear even more short-sighted and poorly-timed.
If the AOL/Time-Warner merger is permitted, according to Scott Ehrens, one of Wall Street's most respected media analysts, it will represent "an unprecedented powerhouse. If their mantra is content, this alliance is unbeatable."
The AOL/Time-Warner mantra is, in fact, content, along with delivery. But it isn't as clear whether it's unbeatable. If the IBM/Linux move hadn't been announced on the same day, yesterday would have gone down in history as one of the Net's darkest.
But IBM's decision to Linux-enable its computers might mark an even more significant shift in the technology world. IBM's embrace of open source underscores the fact that Linux is no longer a fringe technology. The age of proprietorship may have ended yesterday, as a hoary corporation appeared to emerge Godzilla-style from the muck.
The significance of IBM's move was that the next generation of e-business will expect increasingly open standards for inter-operability across a wide variety of computer platforms. A movement that began as a counter-cultural, individualistic effort to keep the Net free from the very kind of corporatist control the AOL/Time-Warner merger typifies has broadened into a growing standard for commercial as well as individual computer use.
Linux has, in effect, ensured that at least a significant portion of the Net will have an option to remain free of the kind of corporate control AOL and Time Warner each embodied separately, let along together. (If there were ever two companies that deserved to eat one another alive, it's these two. It's hard to say which is greedier, blander, or less committed to any ethos beyond information as a cash commodity.)
The AOL/Time-Warner merger is chilling. This is a new kind of nation the world doesn't need. The merger needs to be carefully scrutinized, and hopefully stopped. The company would be far too big and powerful to exert a healthy influence on media, entertainment, or on the Internet. If corporations and their lobbyists weren't the largest contributors to the American political process, members of Congress would be clamoring for hearings on the acquisition of the American media, new and old, by a handful of obscenely large and powerful businesses.
The libertarian ethos of the Net resists government control or oversight, but that philosophy will be sorely tested by mergers like this one, which could make many nostalgic for the old Microsoft. The corporate move to acquire information, online and off, is a civic and an Internet menace. There hardly exists a free and independent journalistic culture off-line anymore. Time-Warner, Disney, GE, News America, Microsoft and Westinghouse have devoured too many of the country's most powerful media organizations.
The United States may have been the birthplace of a free and independent press, but its contemporary mass media are, increasingly, disgraceful testaments to mega-marketing: sensationalized promoters of controversy and fragmentation, producers of tepid, homogenized information-peddling.
By comparison, the Net, increasingly the subject of commercial and corporate interest and speculation, has remained strikingly free, diverse and outspoken. One of the most substantial threats online, the growing dominance of Microsoft, was blunted by the open source movement, government intervention, and the company's own uncertainty and lack of real creativity.
As of this week, individuals, people who believe in free and diverse speech, those who believe in the free distribution of information and unrestricted navigation of the Net, have a new and potentially much more menacing opponent than Microsoft ever was. To a chorus of breathless business reporters and joyous Wall Street analysts, Steve Case declared he was launching "an Internet Revolution." That's a pretty fancy term for unprecedented greed and power.
Case managed to make Bill Gates appear humble.For all that Gates is routinely portrayed as a Millenial genius, neither he nor his company was ever that grasping, or particularly creative when it came to creating content or expanding into new forms of media. Ultimately, despite much-publicized ventures from the online magazine Slate to MSNBC, Microsoft has not been able to successfully move beyond software and services.
Companies like AOL-Time/Warner will seek to dominate the Net just as other companies increasingly bulldoze over other parts of American business and cultural life, from music and filmaking to retailing and even coffee shops. Wal-Mart, Blockbuster Video, Staples, Toys R Us, Starbucks, Disney and now, AOL/Time-Warner, rule our world.
Antitrust Regulation, plus Bonus Katz Flame (Score:2)
Where the merger could get bogged down is with the Federal Communications Commission or local cable regulators -- I believe the laws they administer frequently have a requirement that an acquisition of control of a cable licensee be "in the public interest". These laws explain why the AOL/TW brass were making plenty of noises yesterday about this being good for consumers.
As far as the threat to consumers/democracy, as long as (i) the First Amendment is not interpreted in a way to erode on-line freedoms of small proprietors, (ii) bandwide access (including eventually so-called broadband) is going to be available cheaply in a content-neutral fashion (like the phone lines), (iii) public document standards (like HTML) are available for any major document types, from text to sound and video, (iv) client software is universally available to support these document types and (v) adequate safeguards to user privacy are in place, I am not sure how worried I would be. Of course, all these conditions are not completely satisfied today, and market concentration presents a greater likelihood that they will not be able to be realized in the future, but I would think that it is within the power of "netizens" (a word I hate) and members of the open source/free software movement in particular, to ensure that these conditions are realized. The point of these conditions is to ensure that it is within the power of anyone or any group with even the most limited of resources, to distribute information that could potentially reach anyone else in world. If this is the case, then regardless of the market concentration of the largest content proprietors, niche providers will still be able to promote their businesses or, more importantly, disseminate information that is being ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media. Of course, it is still annoying to live in a world of uncultured, sheep-like consumer-drones, but I am not sure that the AOL/TM merger is going to be outcome-determinative of that issue.
Bonus Katz Flame: Katz is up to his old tricks again with the hyperbole and Wired-speak. I am disappointed in CmdrTaco that he sees fit to subject us to him, but, sad to say, Katz has probably made CmdrTaco and company millions of dollars -- his brand of controversy-provoking articles draws the page hits and comments that the valuation of Slashdot (and now Andover) is driven off of. Thus, in a sense, Katz himself represents the watered-down, anything-for-a-buck pseudo-content that he excoriates AOL and TM for delivering. I am really surprised that Katz can make a career off of his writing -- I initially though he was some barely-adult college buddy of CmdrTaco -- but he can, judging by his ability to get books published and the willingness of the mainstream press (not that they're any great shakes) to solicit quotes from him (as he so proudly notes in his article), and he is no spring chicken -- in a blurb on a site promoting a recent book of his, he notes he has a daughter at Yale (what a proud papa he must be!). I guess the mainstream press is ignorant enough about technology, and many (but not all or even most, of course) of the Slashdot readers have little appreciation of what good journalism and non-fiction is, that there is a niche for "tech journalists" like Katz, who are neither technically adept or much of a journalist, to flourish. (An aside: it especially pains me that he apparently has not made much of an effort to get up coding or Linux -- at the beginner level, its not rocket science, after all.) Of course, Katz is just a penny-ante example of the type of know-nothing that has infested the computing/internet business -- don't believe for a second that the multi-million-dollar-a-year financial analysts or investment bankers who have pumped up the net stocks are any better.
Some Facts about Time Warner/AOL -The Corporations (Score:2)
Cable Networks:
TBS Entertainment
o 6 of 1999's 10 top-rated event programs year-to-date
o #1 in delivery of key adult demographics
o 3 of 5 top-rated basic cable networks
CNN News Group
o More than 76 million U.S. subscribers
o 600+ news affiliates in U.S. and Canada
Home Box Office o 10 branded channels
o 34.6 million U.S. subscribers (12/30/98)
o 23 Primetime Emmys
Publishing:
Time Inc.
o 33 magazines
o 31 New York Times best-sellers in 1998
o 120 million magazine readers (12/31/98)
Filmed Entertainment:
Warner Bros.
o 5,700 feature films
o 32,000 television titles
o 13,500 animated titles (including 1,500 classic toons)
New Line Cinema
o 4 of 1998's top 26 box-office hits
o The highest-grossing comedic sequel of all time, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Music:
Warner Music International, Atlantic, Elektra, Rhino, Sire, Warner Bros
Warner Music Group
o 24 Grammys in 1999
o 23 of 1998's top 100 U.S. albums
o 1 million music copyrights
Cable Systems:
Time Warner Cable
o 21.3 million homes passed
o more than 13 million customers
o 34 cable clusters with 100,000+ subscribers
Time Warner Digital:
Road Runner(TM), CDNOW, CNN Interactive
Re:God Dammit!!! (Score:2)
That's *GREAT!* If you live in Phoenix. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Cross-fertilization" (Score:2)
Considering that AOL and Time Warner frequently screw their customers, I find the term "cross-fertilization" very appropriate.
This merger is good... how? (Score:2)
...phil
Useful link - a list of Time Warner assets (Score:2)
This page lists everything Time Warner owns. Some highlights:
Book-of-the-Month Club
Little, Brown and Co. (Publishers)
HBO
CNN
Cartoon Network
RoadRunner (cable internet access)
WB network (duh!)
Hanna-Barbera (cartoons)
Castle Rock Entertainment (TV, movies)
Witt-Thomas productions (TV, former makers of Roseanne)
Time Magazine
Fortune Magazine
Southern Living (I didn't even know about this one)
DC Comics and Vertigo Comics (AOL owns Sandman!!!)
Mad Magazine (and the TV show of the same name on Fox)
Viva (German Music TV)
Channel V (TV in India)
New Line Cinema (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Mortal Combat, various other crappy movies)
Atlanta Braves (AOL owns John Rocker)
AOL Time Warner is in bed with Bertelsmann (AOL France, AOL Deutschland), Sony (Columbia House, HBO Asia), EMI (Viva, Channel V), Polygram (Viva), and Viacom (Comedy Central).
This new company is bound up in deals with its competitors, and the people it has deals with compete with each other. Nothing about the new company's operation are centralisable without destroying all those joint ventures. All kinds of anti-trust laws and agreements are tying it up. This new company does not pose any greaterr threat than it did before.
Re:Libertarian ideas (Score:2)
Re. deregulation of the telecom industry, I think they're in a black hole or something entirely outside our known laws of physics. At least Bell Atlantic is. The physical reality of all that damn wiring makes it really hard to get any relief.
In general I find it interesting how many people here espouse govt restrictions on corporations while at the same time saying govt should get off our backs on everything else.
In the long run I don't think you can do anything about ultra-rich people or corps except vote with your dollars. AOL caters to a particular group of 20M people and has apparently given them what they want enough to make $760M last year. I'm sure THAT group of people would think "hell yes, let them buy anything they please, it'll benefit me". And they might be right.
There hardly exists a free and independent journalistic culture off-line anymore.
I don't recall seeing TOO many small newsletters doing well EVER. Small guys didn't get too far in meatspace; publishing and distributing tons of paper is expensive. The net empowers the little guy in a lot of ways, which this merger will not change. To say the little guy was more likely to be heard 20 or 80 years ago is bull. Remember the Hearst empire? Katz would have us believe it's all gone to hell just recently. Really it had always been owned by big guys.
Considering Katz has a place here to spout his particular brand of logic-free daily doom I shouldn't think he should worry much. You don't see him saying "Stay away from this SlashDot corporate ad-banner grab-fest; I'm only going to post articles at my GeoCities page for no money." He doesn't rail against the "SlashDot monopoly" for political tech news! He worked for ABC, wasn't it? Some small startup, that. And I'd like to see the difference in his bank account once he's been on a couple of know-nothing news shows telling the world his opinion this merger. Mo money mo money mo money. Just like any corporation. Hmmmm.
Katz's point on monopoly (Score:2)
AOL's product was different than all others--they made it incredibly dumbed-down and easy to use for people who want it that way. Incredibly enough, there are about twenty million of them who want their internet served to them on a high chair. So AOL gives it to them--is there anything wrong with giving people what they want? Just because a company can produce a product better than any other, does that mean they're a monopoly and shouldn't be allowed to compete?
The real problem that Katz may be talking about is monopolistic practices. These are very different from being a monopoly. Microsoft exhibits monopolism--they've done very illegal things (make ultimatums to OEMs, etc) to keep their monopoly. There's nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft being a monopoly--only with the unethical practices they've used to keep it. I see no reason why a huge AOL-TimeWarner company would necessarily be monopolistic, even if they did have a large amount of market share.
Katz, go back to freshman econ. You can yammer about this merger all you want, but don't bring monopoly into it.
you're fucking nuts katz! (Score:2)
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
Re: Why I hate AOL ... (Score:2)
Well, this part at least I can say that I *think* AOL actually has a reason for it...Netscape. As soon as NS5/Mozilla is finished, they'll have a standards-compliant embeddable browser they can just swap with the VERY crappy one they have now. Their view on the browser situation is probably "We don't have time to worry about bugs in a browser that is just gonna get ditched in a year or so anyway". Sad but true.
Ahh...but now you've hit on the TRUE reason to hate AOL.
AOL, like most large corporations, views the populace as sheep. Dumb animals that are quick to panic in large numbers when they get scared, but are docile as long as they are happy.
What better way to keep the populace happy than to shield them from everything that is "bad"? If they never see/hear/read anything they might find remotely offensive, they will stay happy and keep spending money. And where will they spend the money?
Wherever the people keeping them happy tell them to. Which is, of course, what AOL wants.
So, AOL takes it upon itself to decide what is "good" and what is "bad". AOL being the judge, they get to define what constitutes "bad" - be it pornography, vulgarity, or simply opposing viewpoints.
And of course the Internet being a big, scary place, full of "bad" things, AOL must take it upon itself to shield it's subscribers from all of the nasty things that might be "bad" -- free thought, free expression, competition -- all of these things that would cause their docile little sheep to get excited.
As far as acquiring Time Warner goes...now AOL owns the pipes that information gets sent down. Like it or not, many people, including some very intelligent ones, take what CNN says as being the complete and total truth. Now that AOL has control, CNN can, and probably will become a forum for AOL's worldview to be touted to the masses.
Expect a rise in "feel good" news stories, as well as the typical stories designed to scare the populace -- murder, terrorism, school shootings, etc -- as these are the kinds of stories that pimp the media, government, and law enforcement as being the shining hope for humanity, when in fact they are as corrupt as the corporate profiteers.
All (media, government, law enforcement, corporations) are motivated by one thing: greed. There are more officers sitting in speed traps to punish Joe Q. Motorist for going 10 miles above the speed limit than there are rooting out the drug dealers, terrorists, and serial killers that are causing REAL problems.
I would be suprised if this is the last of the large corporations buying media companies. Now that AOL has Time Warner (outdoing Microsoft's MSNBC that noone takes really seriously anyway), expect many other corporations to follow suit.
I, for one, am hoping the FTC gets involved in this one, stopping what will be a HUGE problem down the line before it starts.
Okay, I've ranted enough for now =)
Re:Libertarian ideas (Score:2)
So you think your stock price will stay the same after that huge fine? How about your dividends? By the above logic, if a company you own stock in makes a billion dollar profit, it doesn't matter because that money "went to the company" and not directly into your pocket.
This would only happen in the most absurd fantasy.
Failure of imagination is a poor argument. For any market where there are few enough competitors that the loss of one is consequential (i.e. most markets) and for which there are significant barriers to entry (again, most markets) knocking a competitor out of business is going to do good things in the long run for your profits.
Corporations exist to make profits, not to eliminate the competition. There is much more profit to be had by making a profit
Sure, if you never look beyond the short term. In the long term, on the other hand, it's just basic macroeconomics. The maximum profit a monopoly can draw out of a market is a higher than the total profit that a large group of competing companies can draw out of the same market... and is a lot higher than the profit that any one of those companies can make.
So if the barriers to entry in your market are high enough, it pays to crush the competition. And in some markets...
We all bitch about Microsoft's underhanded tactics, but can anyone imagine the power they'd have in a truly libertarian society, where the EULA could say anything they wanted and it would be 100% enforceable? Say goodbye to dual-booting. Picture licenses for Visual C++ that disallow the purchasing company from developing software for any other platform, and (software enforced) licenses for Windows that don't let you run software created without Microsoft development tools. Microsoft could make running new Windows programs under Wine illegal, and make it stick. They could change TCP/IP over the course of a year so that only Windows computers could talk to Windows computers, and make it stick. This garbage about disallowing preinstalled Netscape is nothing compared to what a company with that kind of dominance could do if they weren't afraid of government reprisal.
Re:Media monopoly time ... (Score:2)
And I find myself wondering at how little I care. The bigger 'Media' gets, the easier it is to avoid. Settle the fsck down.
; )
Good Point (Score:2)
The car-wreck appeal of his articles guarantees a large audience, and many excellent opportunities to openly oppose what I feel to be grevious and often harmfully mistaken assertions put forth in many of his pieces.
He has the right to act as an Instigator if he wishes. Instigators by nature don't like voices of dissent, and will try to quiet them with threats or cajoling. Katz is the cajoling type, who will say, in a hurtful tone of voice, "If you don't like my writing and can't say anything nice (sob) then don't read it!"
Bulls*it on that!
or even worse (Score:2)
And he will, too, out of sheer gratitude that you didn't have the 'nerve' to oppose him on the public forum he road in on.
Phaghh!
Read TIME(tm) and Understand... (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that TIME/Warner is a lost cause. It's a big, beautiful horse with cancer and bad teeth. AOL has acquired a pile of shit that will allow them to put Bugs Bunny(tm) on their promotional materials. Seeing as all Warner Bros. characters quite effectively died with Mel Blanc, this is of no consequence.
Much Ado About Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Bugs Bunny is Hitler (Score:2)
A scary prospect that exists only in your own panic-stricken mind.
I'll end by bringing this thread to it's logical conclusion:
Bugs Bunny is the new Hitler and will bring about the extermination of all who oppose him!
I can see all the activists and slashdotters lining up at the crematoriums where, instead of the old "Work is the father of freedom", the building entrance will have a sign that says "T-T-T-That's All, Folks!"
Re:Kats bashers (Score:2)
Re:The frightening concentration of media power (Score:2)
Re:Companies == immortal organisms (Score:2)
Time/Warner was/is a HUGE corporate entity, but the environment in which it has existed so comfortably for quite a while has changed so drastically that they have weakened to the point that they have been snatched up by AOL. If you mentioned that possibility to anyone back in '85, they'd laugh 'til they were red in the face.
Corporations are essentially ideas (memes), which struggle and battle for resource dominance just like people, trees and fuzzy critters in the wild. Christianity vs. Islam, Communism vs. Capitalism, Linux vs. Microsoft are all just bugs in the cosmic compost heap. *None* of them are in any way immortal.
Start a business of your own, or work for a seemingly healthy company that suddenly gets vaccumed up by a competitor and see just how 'stable and undisturbed' the corporate environment really is!
Cheerfully and Respectfully,
-kent
minor correction (Score:2)
Capitolism - A sexual response to images of the United States Capitol building, largely due to its close resemblance to a large white tit.
Re:Libertarian ideas (Score:2)
Katz' worries about 'independent journalistic culture' extend as far as his next paycheck. The fact is that the net is making things like 'independent journalistic culture' obsolete, so it's only fitting that he and his ilk leap about like so many roaches on a griddle at the thought of their cozy little island sinking beneath the waves. I don't blame him, but I don't owe him a living, either.
Truth is, journalistic culture is now more random and spontaneous. You're as likely to read an enlightening tidbit from an Anonymous Coward here on Slashdot as you are from a staff writer for CNN or The Nation or whatever rag/portal you choose.
Where did you learn anti-trust law? (Score:2)
Spend some quality time with Google and learn more about what you are talking about. Here [cmu.edu] is some background on the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and you are not even close.
The value of a free press is closely related to free speech in the sense that one can criticize the government without fear of being jailed or killed for it. That doesn't stop people from thinking free speech/free press means we can say/print/photograph anything we want and nobody can do anything about it.
Others have already pointed out that this is not a monopoly. There is plenty of competition and other avenues for news/entertainment.
Re:Here's a question I have (Score:2)
Tim Behrendsen dun said:
Well, I don't know about other Slashdot readers, but in my case it happens to be from hard experience.
You see, for the first twenty-five years of my life I grew up in a family that was in what may best be described as a "Bible-based cult"--one which also happens to be one of the largest churches in one of the largest fundamentalist "Christian" denominations worldwide (if you must know, it's the exact same denomination that the "Brownsville Movement" in Florida--which was actually exposed nationwide as being a Bible-based coercive group--is in; it's the same denomination that the vast majority of televangelists and Religious Reich heads are in; it's a little denomination based out of Springfield, MO, and it has two million members alone in the US; from what I've been able to find out after walking away over ten years ago, the entire denomination is rife with problems of both individual churches and the denomination as a whole going outright coercive, sometimes with deadly results--several people have died in "exorcisms" in past [deliverance ministry, which is basically "all of your doubts about the church and anything trying to drive you off the path are the results of demons, anyone who's against us is obviously demon posessed, and you have to pray the demons out even if it's with another person and you're exorcising someone against their will"] in this denomination).
Said Bible-based cult also happens to be one of the larger churches where I live, and pretty much RUNS the Religious Reich's political wing in my state (Kentucky, if you're curious).
I still get teh willies thinking back on stuff before I walked away, when they were preaching stuff in Sunday school like "the head of NBC is a Satanist" or "Don't use stuff with placenta in it because it contains ground up aborted babies" or "It's going to be a good thing when nuclear war breaks out, because we'll be up in heaven laughing as all the sinners fry" and practically going to orgasm when the Cold War threatened to turn hot (or later, during the Gulf War--they were convinced Saddam Hussein was going to start Armageddon--or later yet, with the Y2K crisis). I shudder when I realise that the folks who are saying this only support Israel because they think that if they kiss enough arse they'll be fighting with them when the End comes, and if it weren't for the fact they believe a war with Israel being involved is going to start the war to end all wars they wouldn't give a shit...they also claim ANY environmental help is "nature worship" and have actually stood up and said it is man's "duty to subdue the earth and use all her resources, and we don't need to worry about preserving things really because the Rapture is going to be Real Soon Now and we'll get a new heaven and new earth anyways"...
And I get downright scared when I realise that it's these folks who are one of the biggest groups that DO vote consistently (because to them, voting is a literal Jihad--a righteous struggle to turn America into a theocracy)...and largely because they are told not to read ANY mainstream media (the better to isolate them, my dear, and allow Preacher Man to feed them ever larger amounts of horsecrap) these people are utterly convinced they are doing the right thing.
Part of the reason it's my big bugaboo is I walked away from that shite, and I'm not about to let them drag the whole of America into what I walked away from because I realised it reeked to Hell and back and generally would NOT be something that Jesus would exactly approve of IMHO. I grew up with it for 25 years, and I know a lot of what exactly the Religious Reich DOES have planned for the US, and I can say in all truth that it is not something I would wish on my worst enemy and it is something that even would make the book "The Handmaid's Tale" pale in comparison (btw, I consider that one of the scariest books I've ever read--because I know all too well how it CAN happen here, and mostly by people not giving enough of a damn to stop it).
Now, as for welfare--I'll agree not everything has been run right. I also don't think it should be taken away entirely (especially considering that most people on welfare are single moms and/or poor families--who, by and large, aren't popping out "welfare babies" but have had crappy luck--many of which WANT to better themselves). One thing I think could SERIOUSLY help get people off welfare is raising the minimum wage (right now, a mother with kids actually makes more on welfare than in a typical job if she's unskilled; she also gets Medicaid and state help for doctors for her kids, which she loses if she gets a job most of the time; most of the training programs for single moms going to "workfare" in Kentucky seem to be for child-care [which pays exactly jack] instead of skilled jobs like, oh, IS or even data entry where she might actually make seven bucks an hour at UPS rather than $5.15...). Sometimes folks DO need extra help, and I don't think the churches can be relied on to give it (without strings--if I ever ended up homeless, I think I'd be well and truly screwed; most homeless shelters are run by church groups that basically make you hear a sermon for bedding and food :P...I'd not want to go through that, because I'm a walkaway and even now discussion of Christianity period is painful to me...I've been religiously abused, and you might say I still have a bit of post-traumatic stress disorder about the whole thing :P).
Speaking of homelessness, here's a nice couple of statistics for you: A fair number of kids on the street are kids who have had to leave their households because of fear of physical, mental, sexual, emotional, and/or spiritual abuse. It is estimated that a fair number of these kids are gay kids who escape fundy households; gay kids in fundy households have the single largest suicide rate of ANY group, even above other gay teens [which in and of themselves have the largest suicide rate of any teen group] as well as the largest rates of physical, emotional and spiritual abuse...many of those kids either suicide or run away in an effort to prevent abuse that is almost to the point of unmaking what those kids are inside.
Another fun statistic: Most "Bible-based coercive groups" (using the definition that most groups use now--it is basically a checklist of behaviours--you can find copies on any Google search on "coercive groups") tend to fall into smaller denominations of fundamentalist groups in the US. (In fact, the vast majority are breakaway denominations, or breakaways of groups that broke away from, four denominations: the Methodists, the Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ, and the Church of God; even some churches in the last three denominations have had problems with coercive practices.) Many of these groups are the fastest growing churches in the US, and some of them are also among the largest; they are also by far the most politically active, and even denominations considered traditionally mainstream have been taken over by fundies (most notably the Southern Baptist Convention, formerly a right-moderate church; fundamentalists swept the elections some years ago and have enacted a massive purge that has led to several churches outright being forced to leave as well as the dismantling of the only social works college in the world [at the Seminary]--literally everyone who is a moderate or who has had truck with the moderates is being run out, and there's very serious talk of a split of the entire Southern Baptist Convention over the mess; if things continue one may have to eventually list the Southern Baptists as a bible-based coercive group, because they're starting to use the same coercive techniques as other coercive groups :( ).
Another fun statistic: The hardest group to walk away from is the Scientologists; the second hardest tend to be Bible-based cults (because most people don't think of "Christian" churches being coercive in the same way Scientologists are; even though the church I walked away from uses every single technique Scientologists do, and some others which are harmful [like "shepherding"/"cell churches" where the church members are divided into groups of five to basically "keep watch" over each other and make sure they don't stray from church doctrine--which makes it very difficult to walk away]). Spiritual abuse, by and large, is STILL not taken seriously by child protective services, largely because most social workers have never been taught about it.
Another fun statistic: Children who are raised in coercive groups who do not walk away by their early teens generally don't walk away, period. Chances are far better if they joined in late childhood or in their teens; there are literally no statistics on walkaways who walked away from a coercive group they were raised in (or who have family members in the group across several generations) because it is literally so rare an occurence that reliable statistics can't be done. Most kids who walk away from coercive groups their family is in either suffer severe abuse, end up suicidal, end up running away, or end up involuntarily committed to some "training center" designed to literally brainwash the kid [this is doubly so for gay kids in fundy households, who are often involuntarily outed and "exorcised", or sent to "reparative therapy" (an aside--"reparative therapy" is psychotherapy designed to "cure" someone of being gay--it has almost a 100% failure rate, the two founders of possibly the largest fundy group pushing reparative therapy {Exodus} have now admitted it doesn't work {and are a happy gay couple besides}, and the American Psychiatric Association {which hasn't recognised being gay as a "disorder" for well nigh over 25 years} has condemned it as being potentially VERY destructive to one's psyche)].
Home schooling programs have also gone way up. Something like fifty to sixty percent of homeschool groups and sources for curriculum are fundy-controlled; most fundy homeschool groups use the "A-Beka" curriculum which is the same one used in fundamentalist-run parochial schools. (Those of you who are going shopping for homeschool stuff may want to be VERY careful as a result.) Most of the folks pushing homeschooling are fundies, to the point a fundamentalist college has opened up for homeschooled youth to train them to be political candidates for the Religious Reich (no, I am not making this up). Basically to keep them locked away forever so they never question or doubt...never have the chance to walk away.
I dare say that by the time things are said and done, we'll find probably that liberalism and conservatism have destroyed an equal number of lives--at the hands of the fundies at either end, at that. It's only now coming out how much harm has been caused by religious abuse, for example, much like how in the 70's people only started to see the harm of welfare without training programs and an increase in living wages.
What Steve Case has to say... (Score:2)
<quote>
Dear Members:
Less than two weeks ago, people all over the world came together in a global celebration of the new year, the new century, and the new millennium. As I said in my first Community Update of the 21st Century, all of us at AOL are extremely excited by the challenges and the prospects of this new era, a time we think of as the "Internet Century."
I believe we have only just begun to see clearly how the interactive medium will transform our economy, our society, and our lives. And we are determined to lead the way at AOL, as we have for 15 years -- by bringing more people into the world of interactive services, and making the online experience an even more valuable part of our members' lives.
That is why I am so pleased to tell you about an exciting major development at AOL. Today, America Online and Time Warner agreed to join forces, creating the world's first media and communications company for the Internet Century. The new company, to be created by the end of this year, will be called AOL Time Warner, and we believe that it will quite literally change the landscape of media and communications in the new millennium.
This really is something to celebrate. That's because we are so excited about how this new company will speed the growth of the Internet, making the online experience richer and more meaningful than ever before, for more people than ever before.
Even though AOL and Time Warner have been two very different companies, we share a common commitment to our customers and a common vision for the future -- and we are confident that we will be a perfect fit together as one company.
Just think of it: AOL members already represent the largest community in cyberspace. Together with our other services -- from CompuServe, Netscape and ICQ, to Digital City, AOL Instant Messenger, AOL Moviefone, Spinner and Winamp -- we are touching tens of millions of people's lives in every corner of the world.
Time Warner is the world's #1 media and entertainment company -- with an unsurpassed range of household name brands ranging from CNN and HBO to Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, Entertainment Weekly, and Looney Tunes; from Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema to Warner Music Group labels and the Turner entertainment networks.
Together, AOL Time Warner will create a new company for the Internet Age -- a global company on the cutting edge of content and technology, with an unprecedented ability to drive commerce and communication ...and to build community.
Indeed, we are looking forward to working together to meet the challenges of bridging the digital divide, to enhance educational resources for children, and to encourage more people to get involved in their communities.
We are particularly excited about the benefits this merger will bring consumers when high-speed broadband networks become even more widespread. Time Warner's cable connections already criss-cross the country, supplying more than 20 percent of American households with the potential for faster Internet connections and a greater range of online services.
We are committed to expanding that potential so it can reach as many people as possible -- and to working with other companies to ensure all consumers have access to the broadband experience.
At AOL, we work hard every day to fulfill our mission of building a medium as central to people's lives as the telephone and the television -- and even more valuable. Time Warner shares that vision -- and this merger advances the day when that vision becomes reality.
Since the day we launched our first online service, our members have been the driving force behind AOL's success - and you will continue to be our top priority. You can look forward to the same great experience that has made us the largest community in cyberspace ... and the best is yet to come!
Warm Regards,
Steve Case
</quote>
--
AOL's CNN (Score:2)
--
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
>opening their cable lines up to other ISP's.
Mebbe not. Case has already been making noises that this deal will allow the marketplace, not the government to decide how people get access.
This directly affects my home town, Portland OR, where there is a fight between the local government & ATT/TCI over cable access. Up until this development, AOL was the major corporate supporter for open access. Now he's seen as a traitor to this cause.
``Steve Case is the Benedict Arnold of the digital age, "said Jeff Chester of the Center for Media Education. ``He's campaigned all acros the country for open access. After he purchases access for AOL, he's no longer in favor of pubolic policy.
Also let me quote one of the local politicos on this, Erik Sten, Portland City Commissioner, who believes Cases words are ``code for no open access. Open access has probably lost a major champion."
Oh well, the Official Talking Heads (tm) have had their 15 minutes. They talked to Katz, they talked to Chester & to Sten. Odd that the news sources aren't talking to the folks actually out on the Internet, like the folks on
Geoff
Re:A Vertical Monopoly - (Score:2)
Boojum
Re:Media monopoly time ... (Score:2)
Then again, the jingoistic BS spouted during our own media (here in the States) after the Gulf War didn't save Bush....
The frightening concentration of media power (Score:2)
I'm surprised you haven't read my original comment yesterday in regards to this merger.
This is a VERY chilling merger, because the combination of AOL and Time-Warner can dictate a large fraction of what we see in the movies, what we see on TV (over-air AND cable), what we heard on records, what we read in general-interest magazines, and soon what we can see on the Internet.
I think the FTC and Department of Justice will VERY carefully look at this merger. This merger may also not bode well for the DoJ in the US v. Microsoft case, because this event will give Microsoft plentiful ammuntion to prove that their marketshare in the computer market could fall due to rapid changes in the computer industry. In short, the US v. Microsoft case has just been rendered obselete by this massive merger.
Re:I figure (Score:2)
The industries accused of becoming monopolies during the congressional debates on the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act all dropped their prices more rapidly than the general price level fell during the 10 years before the Sherman Act.(6)
You object to falling prices? Has it occured to you that maybe these companies were just more efficient? Is Standard Oil supposed to make sure if doesn't cut its prices "too much" to make sure they don't "unfairly" compete? Do you have any evidence that their prices were lower than their production costs?
So, you only object to being enslaved and oppressed and denied choice if it's by the government?
No, my point is that comparing Ma Bell to Microsoft, AOL, or anyone else in the private sector is nonsensical. There is a basic difference between them. We were forced to use Ma Bell. Private companies obtain market share by the free choice of the customers.
As far as I'm concerned, being screwed by big business is just as painful as by the government.
Please explain what Big Business has done that is anywhere near as painful as the IRS, ATF, FBI, OSHA, FDA, and dozens of other federal agencies that harrass and loot us. Which corporations have the power to throw you in jail if you displease them, or prohibit you from starting a business without your permission? (Not to mention the dozens of governments that have committed mass murder) Consider also that the Federal government dwarfs even the largest US corporations. What power does Big Business have that can compare?
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
So you're saying, what, that newbies shouldn't be on the net? How would they have done it any differently?
Besides, those "clueless newbies" are the folks that every e-commerce site on the net is trying to attract. There are a hell of a lot more of them than there are of us. The net would be a much smaller and less interesting place if those "clueless newbies" were not able to get online.
and not paying a penny for all that trouble.
AOL doesn't pay for its bandwidth?
Re:I am uneasy. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. AOL customers have a very important option: they can go to a different ISP. The fact that so many of them choose to stay with AOL tells you they can't be abusing their customers too much.
The rest of us won't be affected much at all. I can't get information about AOL users, but the same is true of other ISP's. What do you want?
Katz is right, the spectre of a stock with more power than any world government, or even all world governments, is solidifying, and those friendly happy AOL users ("all my friends are on AOL") do not realize it, but facilitate it.
Money is not equivalent to political power. AOL cannot pass new laws about you. They can't impose taxes. In fact, as long as you're not a customer, there's not a thing they can do to you. And there are still gobs of ISP's out there, so it's not like they are a monopoly.
Re:Katz is onto something... (Score:2)
Ummmm... MSNBC is a collaboration between Microsoft and NBC, which I believe is owned by GE.
doh!, how about FoxNews,
FoxNews is owned by Fox, I presume, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That's not TW. ABCNews is owned by Disney, which is also a different source. And you also have Reuters, AP, BBC, NPR, Drudge, Gannet, dozens of hometown papers, dozens of magazines, etc. TW is hardly in a position to control the news. Yes, TW owns a lot of media, but other companies own a much larger portion.
I think you also underestimate the awareness of the American people. The media loves a scandal, and they are particularly happy to report on the screw-ups of their competitors. There have been several instances of bad reporting and/or corporate pressure killing stories, and they have been thouroughly aired in competing media. In several cases, it forced the resignation of the people responsible.
So anyone who thinks that this merger is a threat to the free press is smoking crack. Perhaps it's a threat to the few people who are so stupid and lazy as to get all their news from a single source, but those people don't matter too much anyway.
Re:Katz is onto something... (Score:2)
Just last month they were suing for "open access" to AT & T's lines. Those lines are still there, and odds are AOL will shut up about open access now that they have lines of their own. Get a grip: AOL is not Big Brother.
Re:One reason AOL is so hated - OK. two (Score:2)
I would be inclined to chalk this up more to AOL's general lack of foresight than to any malice on their part. The per-hour usage was the way this sort of thing was done back then, and very few people realized the potential of the internet to transform things. AOL provided a valuable service in those days, and the simple fact was that no one was ready to set newbies up to use a raw internet connection in those days. TCP/IP stacks were not built into consumer OS's, PPP required seperate packages, and the computers were a lot slower than they are now. Very few people knew people with the expertise to set up a real 'net connection.
AOL tried to compete with the internet and lost. What forced them to cut their rates was competition from more nimble competitors. It looks to me like this is a classic case of an extablished player seeing its business model destroyed by more nimble competitors. Capitalism at work, and not the fault of AOL or anyone else.
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
You are ignoring supply and demand. If 20% of the population were unemployed, wages would drop and other companies would hire them. The fact is that most companies are hiring, and for every merger that eliminates jobs, there are other companies hiring everyone in sight. Don't expect any riots any time soon.
Re:Anti-competitive? (Score:2)
How do you figure? There are many markets dominated almost entirely by big businesses, and competitive enterprise is alive and well. Look at the telecom, computer, automotive, and fast food industries. All of them are dominated by Big Business, and all of them are highly competitive.
It is arguable (although I would disagree) that *some* Big Businesses are detrimental to free enterprise, but that doesn't make them always antithetical. The pertinent question is: is AOL damaging to the free enterprise system? I don't see how it is. There are a large number of competing ISP's, with various levels of service and of various sizes. I can't see AOL doing the free-market system any harm.
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
Well, here's one geek who thinks no such thing. There are a lot of broadcast companies out there, and even more ISP's and online news sources. I don't see consumers being hurt by this, and there's a good think that the new company will come up with new ways of integrating various media for a better user experience. This probably won't excite hard-core geeks, but there are a lot of people out there who won't touch a computer until it's as easy to use as a toaster. AOL/TW could help make that happen.
Even if nothing else comes of this, this may be a big win for AOL's customers, as AOL will suddenly have a vast news-gathering and entertainment organization at their disposal.
And in any event, since when is "the gut feeling of geeks" the determining factor in corporate mergers?
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
Now at best you'll find mostly script kiddies or wanna be tech reporters.
Sure, from a hard-core tech perspective, the S/N ratio has probably dropped. But the point is that the signal is still there, and if you're interested in anything other than hard-core tech subjects, the usefullness of the net has increased dramatically. All those newbies you look down your nose at bring with them dollars that advertisers want, and so we get dozens of free news sites, search engines, map generators, babelfish, and dozens of other services-- all for free. Similarly, amazon.com, eBay, and others would likely not be where they are today if they got all their business from a few thousand geeks. It's that vast pool of newbies that make them viable.
Now is that more intersting? You might say the answer is no, but probably 90% of 'net users would disagree.
I'm afraid I'm seeing the same thing with Linux these days. The GUIs are all very well developed and strong; but again it's detracting people from the power and freedom of the command line.
I have news for you: 99% of the population has no need or desire to learn a command line. It is simply not worth the effort. This doesn't make them stupid or lazy, it simply means that they have different priorities. Your life (and mine) revolves around computers. Most peoples' do not. For them, the computer is a tool, just like a toaster, and the less time they have to take learning to use it, the more time they have for more important tasks.
If you don't like GUI's, fine. Uninstall X and run from the command line to your heart's content. But if Linux is ever going to be more than a fringe operating system, it needs to appeal to more than the fringe of geeks who currently use it. A better GUI is a step in that direction.
Re:Furthermore, here is exactly WHY you are wrong: (Score:2)
Besides, the nation is getting older. Tomorrow's voters are today's youth, and they will most definitely know what a search engine is. I'd be willing to bet that your mother doesn't get all her news off of AOL anyway.
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
Really? Obviously you're not going to plop a completely new user in front of a Mac or PC and expect him to be an expert in an hour. But GUI's have a number of advantages over CLI's that cut down training time and reduce frustration for novice users. The problem with most existing GUI's is that they aren't very good. Mac OS is the only one that comes close to doing it well, Windows is mediocre, and the X-based WM are just awful.
General purpose machines are simply too complicated for the sort of user you seem to be describing. This isn't elitism so much as it is a realization that the current (pretty much locked in solutions) haven't really been cutting it.
Sure they have. I have managed to teach my completely computer-illiterate grandfather to do email and web browsing. It was something of a pain, but I shudder to think what it would be like to try to accomplish the same feat under Linux.
Certainly expecting a GUI to allow users to recompile their kernals is unrealistic. But for the tasks your average user needs a computer for, a standard Windows or Mac installation does the job just fine.
Monopolies are indeed bad, but we do not have a monopoly. True, Windows has a large market share, but there are alternatives, and people are using them. And if Linux advocates are right, the future will be even more competitive, no matter what Microsoft does about it.
Re:Slashdot's place... (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
GB lost the Falklands war... (Score:2)
potential problems for high speed access (Score:2)
AOL claims they will continue to fight for open access for ISPs to cable. Let's hope they will. But maybe that stance is just temporary to avoid anti-trust complaints.
In fact, even the aggregation of cable and traditional content providers is worrisome and has led to a restricted menu of cable content already. Altogether, I'd feel more comfortable if regulatory agencies prohibited these kinds of deals outright.
Re:Yeah, you're loved and desired (Score:2)
----
the problem has nothing to do with the merger (Score:2)
If cable companies with broadband networks were bound by "open access" rules, in the same way that phone companies with long-distance lines are bound, then AOL-TW's efforts to sell both Net access and content wouldn't matter.
(If you think that "open access" regulations are a bad thing because cable companies should have the right to do whatever they dang please with their cables, then I suspect you don't have any objections to the AOL-TW merger, either.)
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
cus Ted Turner says so? (Score:2)
I don't know if that comment is pre or post Jane tho
Actually the reason I'm worried is it seems that its the media types who are most worried about this merger; I clipped that quote from Scott Rosenberg's sharp commentary at salon [salon.com]
Re:This merger is good... how? (Score:2)
AOL not all it's cracked up to be (Score:2)
AOL has been achieving painfully little market penetration since it began doing business here in Brazil, maybe a few months ago. There are literally hundreds of lawsuits pending against AOL-BR for having their free CDs completely reconfigure the host computers, and it seems they're going to lose them. There are already about half a dozen well-established and very powerful ISPs which control a sizeable fraction of the market and aren't letting goal. AOL has yet to manage to strike any significant bundling deal with any of the major OEMs. In general, the press reaction has been very anti-AOL, and a sizeable fraction of the Brazilian computer-using public reads at least the computer section of the major newspapers. Maybe this situation is exclusive to Brazil because of its peculiar situation, but their invasion of the Brazilian market was pretty much a flop.
Finally, I'd like to point out that it seems likely that Internet-related stock is going to drop like crazy very soon (*), and AOL is likely to be very damaged by this.
Here, finally, there should be a conclusion. Unfortunately, I have no actual point, and hence no conclusion to speak of. I just wanted to give you something to think about. As always, draw your own conclusion.
* I know, the Internet trade boom is merely representative to the shift to the information age, stock prices will merely stabilize, economic Darwinism will take its toll, and things will go back to normal, and all that. But the world - and particularly the financial market - tends toward hysteria, and that means that, whether you like it or not, the Internet stock market is eventually going down. (Kaufmann says as he dons his asbestos vest and waits for the flames from the economics experts in Slashdot)
Anti-trust (Score:2)
Currently in modern society, the internet and media are two unique and separate entities. We are slowly moving towards a (media buzzword of yesteryear) convergance of these two markets. Now let's move on to the real question:
If and when society recoginizes media and internet as inseperable, would a merger like this be allowed as to where currently this would be coming under government scrutiny? Take, for instance, Microsoft (please! =) ). If at somepoint in the future, the broswer becomes the OS should Microsoft be allowed to merge an internet division and operating systems division to form one company? (This is all under the assumption that the DOJ were to break MS into an applications division and an OS division.)
If I company HAD to merge to survive ( let's call it evolution of business in this case), what right would the government have to stop them from evolving to stay in business? Also if innovation, as MS puts it, leans towards a trend of converging technologies, who is the government to say no?
Most of you know that I am firmly for the breaking up of microsoft as current technology does not dictate the browser as the OS, but in thinking about the time-warner/AOL merger it brought these questions to light.
Any clues?
Re:Stock price (Score:2)
Sometimes it even goes up after a fine (okay, the lawsuit's over, they're still in business, now buy, buy, buy...)
A stock price is the price of a share of ownership. There is nothing a judge can do to affect it other than a very indirect influence upon public perception.
Katz fails again... (Score:2)
What? This new megalith will prevent you from reading Newsweek? This is groundless paranoia. You still have your choice. You're still free to create your own media outlets. And if a merger is all it takes to stifle your creativity, I seriously doubt you were creative to begin with.
"Many of us are free marketers here"
I hate to break the news to you,Katz, but you were never a free marketeer. Do you think I'm so stupid I can't remember any of your previous columns?
"At some point, Americans have to decide if they still want a free information culture, along with a functioning government."
What does the TW+AOL merger have to do with a functioning government? Or are you just disappointed that Judge Jackson didn't immediately step in and block it upon your advice?
"EM>This company would be much larger in cultural influence and economic power than most countries on the earth."
The State of California is equivalent to a first world nation in power. I think I recall that if it were independent, it would be the six largest economy in the world. But guess what? It is not an independent nation, and must obey the US Constitution along with it's own Constitution.
But TimeWarnerAOL is not an independent nation, nor a state, country or municpality. It must follow the very same laws that you and I must. If Microsoft's billions couldn't buy off Judge Jackson, what makes you think TimeWarnerAOL's multibillions would be any better?
"The move represents the most sweeping move yet by corporate conglomerates to control high-speed access to the Internet and to dominate its content."
They have absolutely zero control over my internet access. Zero. That's because I don't use AOL as my ISP. And should they decide to purchase my local mom-and-pop ISP, I still have a choice, many of them in fact. One of them is Pacific Bell, which even T/W/A would not be able to buy.
"The age of proprietorship may have ended yesterday" (in reference to IBM and Linux)
If by "proprietorship" you mean proprietary standards, then you may be correct. But if you are referring to mythical stalmanist utopia where all software is held in common for the Greater Good, you are way off base.
"A movement that began as a counter-cultural, individualistic effort to keep the Net free from the very kind of corporatist control the AOL/Time-Warner merger typifies"
Oh, was that why Linux, BSD, and GNU were created? To keep the net free from corporations? Okay, I'll turn off the sarcasm. Other than GNU and any projects under it, I am not aware of any open source project that is based on any ideology, let along a counter-cultural one. And GNU is hardly antagonistic to business concerns.
The internet is not under corporate control. I seriously doubt it ever will be. No corporation, even TimeWarnerAOL, has the resources to purchase every ISP, let alone all of the infrastructure of the internet. You're living in a paranoid fantasy.
"There hardly exists a free and independent journalistic culture off-line anymore."
If you mean in terms of megamedia, you may be right. But what's your point? Isn't that what you're railing against, mega-anythings? But open up your eyes. Every community in the US has its smaller media outlets including small newspapers, radio stations and television stations.
"sensationalized promoters of controversy and fragmentation, producers of tepid, homogenized information-peddling."
Careful, someone might mistake this description for you
"As of this week, individuals, people who believe in free and diverse speech..."
...have the opportunity to deny the same to others based on the fact that we think they are too big.
"Wal-Mart, Blockbuster Video, Staples, Toys R Us, Starbucks, Disney and now, AOL/Time-Warner, rule our world."
Earlier in history, our world was ruled by Montgomery Wards, Penneys, Rexall and Esso. Even earlier days of yore were ruthlessly exploited by the likes of Sears and Roebuck. We are always going to have large companies. It's the nature of business. However, no one is forcing you to frequent their establishments or read their content. If you don't like Starbucks, don't drink their coffee. Simple. They aren't the only coffee stand in town.
Now don't misunderstand me, Mr. Katz. I am not in favor of corporations as fictitious legal entities that absolve their shareholders of any liability. However, size doesn't matter. If mergers are bad, then the corner drugstore merging with the downtown florist is just as bad as the big mergers. If your criteria on goodness/badness is the economic value of something, then I can only conclude that you yourself are in the wrong since you make more money than I. And what could I conclude about Andover?
Don't point your finger at size and call it a crime. Give me some specific criminal actions that TimeWarnerAOL have committed that would justify the government breaking them up.
Re:Libertarian ideas (Score:2)
No, there's no liability at all! If I own one out of one million shares of Corporation A, and a court subsequently fines them one million dollars, I myself will not share any of the liability, not even the one dollar that is my share. If the day comes when Judge Jackson fines Microsoft several million or even billion dollars, none of it will come out of Bill Gates' pocket. Even if the Microsoft share price plummets as a result, there is still liability against Bill Gates other than his actions as a Microsoft employee.
"if the company is sufficiently large to have significant financial reserves it can lower the costs of its goods and services until they reach unprofitable levels."
Ah, the classic rebuttal. However, it doesn't work. First of all, megacorp has to take a large profit hit for a significant amount of time. Cash reserves aren't infinite and investors are going to bail after a few quarters of losses. Second, it is not worth taking a billion dollar loss to drive a million dollar competitor out of business. Doing so would be extremely foolish, and fools don't create monopolies.
"Monopoly company will have replenished its cash reserves sufficiently to once again rout the competition."
This would only happen in the most absurd fantasy. Corporations exist to make profits, not to eliminate the competition. There is much more profit to be had by making a profit
And product price is not everything.
As a case in point, take a look at Home Depot. They probably have the closest thing to an idiot leadership as anyone. Their goal is to be the biggest. They even have a "Wall of Shame" where they display photos of all the other businesses they have bought out or run out of town. Definitely not a paragon of business acumen. So look what's happening around Home Depots. Their competitors are scrambling to build next to them. Even the small mom-and-pops want to set up shop across the street. Why? Because Home Depot customers hate Home Depot. The get rude service by ignorant salesmen. Their competitors set up shop next door and rake in business by being polite, helpful and knowledgable. Home Depot will get business from those who don't care about anything other than price, and their competitors get everyone else.
Melodrama maybe, but there is a point. (Score:2)
better bottom line, which is a major objective of corporations
totally misses the point. What other things would you allow corporations to pursue to make money? Perhaps genocide or slavery? What about snuffing out their business competitors? How about reaching a critical mass that makes them so able to leverage deals, discourage competitive entry to their market, that the only response for other corporations is to merge to become a similar size? The only logical evolutionary result of an unchecked, unregulated industry is conglomeration, aggregation and a smaller number of large companies. There is at least one good historical example of this in the dawn of modern technology - the "electrical" companies that sprang up at the tail end of the 19th century, especially in Germany. There were many of these (Einstein's father was involved in one) and they innovated and competed like mad. But they discovered that there were economies of scale and gradually accumulated until there were giants like Siemens. Lack of regulation leads to unfair competition, that is what the U.S. has found historically, that's why the laws against monopolies are there - because people generations before you saw it happening in the Steel and Mining industries and in Wood pulp and Newspapers and realized that unchecked competition leads to a shitty deal for those not in the companies.
Anti-competitive? (Score:2)
Big business and competitive enterprise are allowed to grow free in our country.
These two things are antithetical (that means that they're opposed to each other before you ask -it's a shorter, easier word than the long complicated phrase). That's why there are laws against it, this glorious nation decided that it's citizen would be free, not ruled by their government, but ruling it, nor yet ruled by corporations. The freedom that you talk about is your freedom to be a peon, a slave and a consumer.
Is there something wrong with "aquiring" information? Please...
Well, seeing as you ask nicely - acquiring information is fine as long as you don't stop others from also acquiring it (ever hear of something called the GPL?), because that means you can make more informed decisions and the person that makes the best free choices on the basis of this free information does better. Your scenario allows for the choice between a Big Mac and an Arbys. I would like to be able to have more choice. I would like perhaps even to do my own cooking. So, run off back to your Windows box.
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
Competitor? Yes.. they are a competitor.. they are both in the business of capturing people's attention and time.
Absolutely ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:Media monopoly time ... (Score:2)
Funny how when your guy loses its always the fault of the unfair media, but when they win its always due to the wisdom of the voters.
And just yesterday (Score:2)
POKEMON!! (Score:2)
I don't about anyone else but I think Japan has figured out the entertainment market.
Get ready for wave 2 of Pokemon.
Any evidence of stories being squelched? (Score:2)
Re:Katz is onto something... (Score:2)
I think you also underestimate the awareness of the American people.
Not at all, they are very aware...of the things they pay attention to, of the things laid before them. Unfortunately most of us in the U.S. are damn lazy, or are "couch potatoes" common fauna the world over? Most (67%+) basically take what's given them. Many think critically on that info, but don't go beyond it. A good third follow blindly on most things, from politics to light beer. And at least 4.2% don't believe a damn thing. (all figures POMA(pulled outta my ass))
My problem with this (can you ever trust a movie review from AOL again?) and other mass media mergers, ESPECIALLY with non-media companies is the way they limit the stories we hear. In a time when it's not hard to whip up massive agression against big business (Seattle), why don't you see exposes on network TV? Who in the media would think of challenging these companies? Do you think NBC is going to do an in depth report on Microsoft business practices? Will ABC talk about what a run-down boring place Disneyland is, or employ anyone who vocally holds that opinion? Will CNN pick up and run with that fictional story in the future about the guy who raped 647 young girls after he snagged their info on AOL? When media companies can change copyright laws to help protect future earnings (Disney, et all), fight the progress of media technology (RIAA/MP3), perhaps Beck has it right when he says (and you accuse) "MTV makes me wanna smoke crack" (MTV is owned by Viacom who recently merged with CBS, here's a list of stations [cbsradio.com] where you just might hear than hot new song you saw the video for on MVTHV1, and vice versa)
The crux comes in when you realize that most (and more with every mega-merger) of the people who bring you news and information are in league with or owned by people who can benefit from information and news being spun a certain way at a certain time. The job description says to bring you the news, but the contract with the shareholders says to make the most money.
Sorry, went off a bit there, but this is a trend that I fear. I fight it by talking about it, maybe the meme will flourish. Like the one thing I learned from watching G.I.Joe all those years, "Knowing is half the Battle" (hmm, time to change the sig...). Acting is the other half (I don't use AOL, I avoid mass market cinema, I don't watch a lot of TV news but I'm usually on top of things, I have real "Friends", I don't give M$ money (outside the M$ tax))
When the people that bring me my information are more worried about how to make money off that information than delivering it to me, it's time to worry. 'tis another reason I hang out here.
AOL wil now own: (Score:2)
I was thinking last night about what Time-Warner owns and now AOL will own. Please correct/add to this list; this is just the stuff that I have regular contact with.
HBO
Time Magazine
Warner Bros.
RoadRunner Cable service
Minor details... (Score:2)
Matsushita (Panasonic, JVC, Pioneer) once owned Universal, but they sold it to Seagram (an alchoholic beverage company), the current owner.
Just say no to anti-trust (Score:2)
-russ
Furthermore, here is exactly WHY you are wrong: (Score:2)
Re:Katz is onto something... (Score:2)
That's the joy of controlling the market, the consumer CAN'T go someplace else. Don't like CNN, try Headline News, oops same company, how about MSNBC, doh!, how about FoxNews, hmmm, new bikinis.
I say:
Don't like those -- try the BBC [bbc.co.uk] or the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] or the New York Times [nytimes.com] or just hit Yahoo or Google and find any of thousands of other sources.
I don't see the problem...
Tadas
Can't speak for all "libertarians," but ... (Score:2)
and
and he also said
As to this last one
As to the first question (re. monopolies / oligopolies), again, I'm not Joe Everyman or even Joe Libertarian, but the public discourse about monopoly in the abstract and putative monopolies has been poisoned (IMO), by accepting the assumptions of those who are mostly in favor of government regulation. The biggest of these is the one that you intelligently question: what's to stop a slugfest with a permanent, market-controlling, customer-abusive winner?
Answer: lots of things, but they all boil down to Market Competition (caps are mine, just for fun). Can anyone with a Linux box say with a straight face that Microsoft has, or ever had, a monopoly on computer operating systems? I say, No, or at least, if they can say anything but No, I would have to hear what they mean by 'monopoly.' Usually, it seems that the anti-monopolists are really anti-preponderists (not a real word). People talk about barriers to entry in the OS market -- but if there's market demand (or one can be shown as likely to a venture capitalist, say), the work can be done. Linus obviously faced some barriers to entry, but look where Linux is, 10 years later! In fact, the only kinds of monopolies that seem to have much of a chance are those imposed by the government. Like local utilities (which as you point out, are in some cases being less regulated now), local telephone service (should have collapsed many years ago, but was protected by govt. regs), local cable service (same thing), the Post Office (favorite target, too easy)
But even with the monopoly on 1st-class, the Post Office doesn't have a legal monopoly on "information delivery" -- only a certain subset of it. You can still e-mail, or fax (over lines regulated by the FCC), smoke signal (EPA), or send radio broadcasts (FCC again).
As to the middle one, well, it doesn't look to me like competition is decreasing in the telecom industry. Just the opposite -- it's getting to be a very interesting field. Even the scope of what it encompasses is changing, both in the US and in the rest of the world. There are now redundant fiber networks which run all over the continental US, and more being layed all the time. How much does it cost to dial long distance vs. 15-20 years ago? Do you remember when you had to lease your phones from the phone company? [That's a good example of a monopoly, and why the Phone Company was a big target of '60s anti-establishment ire.]
I'm tired, and at work, and these arguments are made by others at greater length and with greater eloquence elsewhere, so I have to stop. But there are a lot of good books on the subject - the two that I would recommend off the top of my head as best representing the libertarian ideal would be
- The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek (I think 19
- The Future and its Enemies, by Virgina Postule (I think that's the name -- (former) editor of Reason). It's skimmable, and at the big bookstores (newly in paperback, in fact).
And for a bigger picture of monopolies and the wisdom of regulating natural / percieved monopolies, there is another really good book, called "Antitrust: A Policy at War with Itself" by --gulp -- Robert Bork. Bork is a smart, eloquent man. This is not to say that he is generally libertarian, though, because that's not the case.
Have a good day!
Tim
Re:AOL Time Warner not a monopoly. (Score:2)
And that's probably not a bad thing --in the same way that Sony can throw the wight of its record labels behind MiniDisc and still not succeed in taking over the world, AOL-TW can throw its huge content libraries behind broadband services and the like and still not succeed. But, if AOL-TW tries to do that --and everything indicates that they will-- they have the clout/cash to make broadband affordable enough for the end consumer to sell their content on. But that doesn't mean that someone else (Sony?) will not be able to sell different content on the same infrastructure/network (actually the DoJ will probably guarantee that they will).
All in all, I think the TW take-over (call it like it is) is a good thing. Now, if AT&T took over T-W, that would be another can of worms...
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
Brown Shoe (Score:2)
If AOL-T/W cut off CNN to non-AOL subscribers they'll feel it far more than we will. If they deny AOL subscribers access to the New York Times they'll just lose subscribers. If they only allow Warner Brothers movies over their pipes then they'll lose lots of subscribers. I don't think Case is that stupid.
It would be nice if JK did a little homework before preaching. The watershed case for the antitrust law of vertical integration was the Brown Shoe case back in (IIRC) 1952. Brown, with only 5% market share, wanted to merge to create a vertically integrated firm. Its competitors objected, because the increased efficiency would have cut into their profits, and the USDOJ blocked the merger. The USSC ruled that integration which threatened competitors but benefited consumers was not against the law; that harm to the consumer was required.
AOL-T/W may be objectionable for a lot of reasons (for that matter AOL is objectionable all on its own) but it's certainly not an antitrust matter either de jure or practically. What it will do is put pressure on other information marketing firms to get their act together in the face of a new standard of efficiency -- which IMHO we should all applaud.
Missplaced hysterics by Mr. Katz (Score:2)
Another thing, AOL is one of the few remaining "big" ISPs that has expanded how one can connect to the rest of the 'net. Example: while others were killing telnet connectivity AOL added it. One can also, easily, use any browser they choose with their AOL connection. I use Netscape while on AOL and use outside news servers for unfiltered ('cep by me) usenet. BTW, I have seen little need to view any AOL content, I have a choice and I do not need Johnny to exercise it for me.
No, not cheering for AOL/Time, just pointing out a few facts. I am sure if AOL began restricting content choices they would swiftly cease being the largest ISP in the world, in much the same way their competitors lost customers with little things like killing telnet.
Just my umbrella to the falling sky.
Only threat I worry about is broadband monopoly (Score:2)
More important is the fact that now AOL will be in control of RoadRunner cable modem service. But really is that any change from before? The cable companies have had government enforced monopolies since thier creation. While a vigilant anti-trust department is a reasonable precaution, I'd like to see it go to work on local municipalities' stranglehold on local utilities. The almost universal practice of granting exclusive access to single service providers, from telephones to cable to power, has generally been used to line the pockets of local officials and thier cronies, consumers be damned. Even places that ostensibly allow multiple licensees almost never get around to actually granting a second license. So our problem is not, as I see it, Big Business, so much as it is Little Government.
I bet Katz is just pissed that Time Magazine turned him down when he applied for a job reviewing records.
Re:Here goes Katz again (Score:3)
And then people like you would give up and shut the fsck up? Fair trade, I say!
;)
Content control (Score:3)
AOL has control of the access to one medium for a huge number of people. Time/Warner will be providing the content for AOL, and it opens up the possiblility of manipulating people via that content. Compuserve useed to make it difficult to access the web, in the hope of restricting their subscribers to their own 'value added' sites. With such a huge media organisation this becomes must more easily accomplished.
Chris Wareham
God Dammit!!! (Score:3)
That now makes me a lousy AOLuser. Guess I have to start using all the smileys and faux leet speak.
Or I could go investigate DSL... hmmm...
That's just too much to wake up to.
Katz is onto something... (Score:3)
I see it as just a huge ISP company joining a huge media company... no big deal there, but is it ME who still gets to decide how do I view their content, or whether to view it or not... after all, there's still a lot of other media companies, in the US and around the world. Remember, the net is, again, that which makes this possible.
It's totally different from Microsoft's bloated ambition... to control every electronic device you have or interact with... now that's scary.
Re:This merger is good... how? (Score:3)
As for consumers. It makes me kind of nervous with one huge company owning that much of our news outlets. But then, the theory would go that the beauty of the internet is in the fact that anyone (witness Rob and Jeff) can start a website, and if they have actual content, succeed. Yeah, there'll be one huge giant supplying news for the lazy people that don't bother to look elsewhere. That won't change what news is like today. And there will forever be the hundreds and thousands of niche sites that supply news to readers with specific interests.
What i can't figure out is why everyone hates AOL so much? Because they're the onyl company that actually made the internet easy enough for non-techies to use? What have they done wrong (not counting yesterday, if that was bad) to merit any hatred? I'm genuinely curious.
The sky is falling again! (Score:3)
What does this mean for the consumer? I reckon it's a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Ten years ago we had media corporations that told us what the news was. The internet changed that -- temporarily. Now we're back into the same position, with the exception that it's easier to get alternative viewpoints. If I hear Dan Rather tell me about something that's happening in China, I can check out the South China Morning Post for an alternate view. However big the corporation get, I can't see that changing any time soon.
Re:Libertarian ideas (Score:3)
Because corporations won't have the priviledges that they now possess. In today's world, governments grant charters to corporations, declaring them to be "legal entities". Because of this, the shareholders (owners) have no liability for the actions of their company.
In a proprietorship (non-corporate business), the owners are fully liable for their company. When the company get's sued, the owners are named in the suit. There are things a proprietorship may not legally do, that a corporation, even a two-man outfit, can.
A libertarian society is about liberty, not license. People are individually responsible for their own actions. But a corporation shields individuals from the consequences of their actions. And they can only do this through the help of the government.
But libertarians do not want "zero government control/regulation". The government has among its proper purposes the defense of the individual against theft and fraud. In a world with "minimal" regulation, they playing field is level. Individuals cannot hide behind their corporate shield. Shareholders are not forced to sell to the competitor just because the SEC says so. There is no eminent domain forcing the mom-and-pop coffeeshop to sell out to Donald Trump so he can build a new casino.
In a libertarian world, the only way a business can become a monopoly is to provide a service that everyone wants. If they start jacking their prices up because they have a natural monopoly, they will quickly lose it as competitors enter the market. And in a libertarian world, monopolies have no power to stop competition, so they have to behave themselves.
But that doesn't mean it's not dangerous (Score:3)
Here's why: Microsoft's monopoly gives it an incredible amount of control over the IT industry that enables it to squeeze out competitive products, keeping prices up and lowering the quality of software available to John Q. Public. This is pretty bad, but realize it's pretty much limited to software.
Time Warner / AOL merger is about control of information. At the same time that the means of information distribution are becoming more global, bashing through cultural barriers (exporting American "culture" everywhere), the number of entities in control of the production of this information and content is shrinking rapidly to a small, oligopolistic group. So we've got an increasingly smaller number of entities controlling the information consumed by an increasingly large amount of the world. This scares me a lot more than OS choice.
The stakes here are much higher. It's easy to have a healthy, democratic society without cheap, effective computer software. It's much harder to have one without free communication and public awareness of critical issues. As the number of truly independent media outlets shrinks, the more sanitized, corporately correct and sensational our primary sources of information become.
So while AOL / TW doesn't have the absolute control over a single product that Microsoft does, it (along with Disney, GE, etc...) has a lot more control over a fundamental part of our society's basic infrastructure (the media) than any one entity should. Which we should all be very concerned about.
Re:Katz is onto something... (Score:3)
Power corrupts, any company in monopoly position gets corrupted (if it isn't already). Monopoly doesn't work with capitalism because...
I don't see TW/AOL imposing restrictions where possible, or imposing hinderances or annoying little things.
Speaking of annoying little things..have you used the download manager with Netscape? That useful little utitily that showed up after AOL chowed Netscape, you know, the one that pops up four ads, requires three clicks to get through and gives you the added benefit of, hold on, downloading files!
In doing so, they'd lose a lot of their market simply because the market wouldn't like it...
That's the joy of controlling the market, the consumer CAN'T go someplace else. Don't like CNN, try Headline News, oops same company, how about MSNBC, doh!, how about FoxNews, hmmm, new bikinis. Choice for media, esp. news has all but disappeared from old media. This merger, if allowed, would make sure for it never to reappear, and could possible make it impossible to ever get that critical mass you need to sustain yourself on the 'Net. If you thought mass media was bland now, wait'll the next century.
And this is all before even beginning to approach the cencorship issues (AOL has a grand record with that), when you control 30% of what people hear or see it's not that hard to lead them wherever you want them to go.
Re:But that doesn't mean it's not dangerous (Score:3)
or maybe a review in Time of national ISP's, or CNN ignores a story about AOL's security woes, or a story on AOLNews about how RoadRunner is the *best* way access the 'Net, or major motion pictures about AOL soundbytes (wait a second...). Thats one side.
The only really savvy thing AOL has done right so far, is to spam the general public with their installation diskettes. They are not a threat.
I'd rather not have every new Net user for the next 3 years signs up with AOL. So easy to use no wonder it's number 1, so many disks no wonder it's number 1, so many commercials no wonder it's number 1, and finally, no competitors no wonder it's number 1.
I don't miss "Mom and Pop" culture in the US (Score:3)
This is true offline. Why should it not be true online? I used to be with a small, local ISP and I must tell you that it was the most miserable ISP I have ever had to deal with. My chances of getting a connection were 1 in 2. Three hour connection limit. Lousy tech support. Busy signals all the time. I switched to one of the major ISP's (not AOL) and I am so much happier. I get 24/7 tech support, almost no busy signals, can stay connected as long as I want. Basically it offered everything that the tiny little company didn't. What is there not to like about that?
AOL and Time Warner, like Wal-Mart before it, will bring bigger, faster, more convienent internet to the masses! I'm not going to use their service because I don't like what AOL offers, but I really don't see anything wrong with making life easier for people, even if it does mean eliminating crappy competition.
Libertarian ideas (Score:3)
I have to agree with Katz here. What do Libertarians think about this? The typical argument I see is that oligopolies and monopolies can't exist with government control (or making them legal, etc), and competition should increase without market controls, but I don't think that is true. If we really did have zero government control/regulation, what would stop a giant slug fest with the result being a few corporations basically owning and/or running the world?
I don't like a lot of what our government does but I think we need one to prevent exactly this type of scenario far before it reaches that point (think of sci-fi movies that look 25-50 to years into the future like Freejack).
I think our government has been moving twords the Libetarian ideal for a number of years now anyway, with deregulation. But look at the telecom industry, competition is decreasing, not increasing, and the industry is consolidating. Even in markets that have been opened up to competitors (such as mine) for the baby bells, not much has changed, DSL access is still spotty, etc. How do Libertarians respond to this?
Jon Katz Nation (Score:4)
Sorry, but I don't consider Jon Katz "libertarian". To be interested in liberty is to be interested in freedom. There is no freedom when there is Only One "right" opinion. This ain't Highlander, and There Can't Be Only One around here. Anyone with a -real- claim to libertarianism knows that.
Why, then, do I leave Jon Katz' checkbox checked? Because I believe that it's worth hearing other people's opinions. Sometimes, in all the dross, there are some real gems. (In general, though, IMHO Slashdot is mostly gems. The dross, though, goes past being real and through the other side.)
Besides, sometimes he says some really meaningful stuff. Just from a mindspace I'd hate to be in.
Media monopoly time ... (Score:4)
Given the partisan nature of newspapers like The Sun (backed up by a slightly more erudite Times that sings the same tune), it's got to the point where media moguls can swing the outcome of elections
Chris Wareham
Don't you think this is a bit melodramatic? (Score:4)
One of the darkest days for the net? I think that is a bit ridiculous, quite frankly. I don't have any problem with these companies merging. It may well make for a better bottom line, which is a major objective of corporations. I think they have a perfect right to merge as they see fit. If the government would get out of a lot of this stuff (that includes using its monopoly on force in enforcing bogus intellectual property laws for 95 years or more), things would be a lot better.
On what principle do you operate to say that the government should prevent this? Government creates more problems than it solves here. Now, I disagree fundamentally with libertarians on some issues, but regarding goverment jumping into this sort of thing, I am more or less in agreement with them. I think a reasonable argument can be made to sanction or even break up a company after wrongdoing is discovered, but I am very uncomfortable with disallowing voluntary mergers before the fact.
Not as bad as you might think (Score:4)
There are plenty of competitors in the internet/media arena that provide both service and content.
One potentially interesting outcome is that AOL has been fighting to access to other companies cable modem networks. Will they now have to open up the cable networks that Time/Warner owns, or end up looking like hipocrites?
A Correction: Not the Largest! (Score:4)
AOL/Time-Warner plans to be the world's largest corporation
They have quite a ways to go in order to be the World's largest corporation (though this is definitely the largest merger ever).
Microsoft $576.6 billion
General Electric 496.5
Cisco Systems 362.2
Wal-Mart 305.1
Exxon-Mobil 293.3
NTT 287.3
Intel 274.0
AOL-Time Warner 261.0
Vodafone-Mannesmann 261.0
MCI Worldcomm-Sprint 223.7
Royal Dutch-Shell 218.7
Pfizer-Warner Lambert 207.8
Actually, I think this is a "good thing" (tm). (Score:4)
Ummm. nevermind, last time [slashdot.org] I did that I was marked down as a troll...
Let's face it. One of the great debates over the internet ever since AOL hooked up it's bulliten board is "How do we get away from these idiots?"
Thanks to the merger, we may soon be free.
AOL will be able to offer a lot of content and special deals. They will be able to let you buy your new GM car and check out the TV guide listings. In short, you'll be able to do all the mundane things that the internet is so good at without ever having to go to the actual internet!
And this my friends solves our problem. It's already easy enough to identify people using AOL. This can be done by checking the IP address using Perl or Java and then redirecting people to a "404 page". This has been done by a number of webmasters already due to the actions of numerous AOL users. (Links will not be provided in order to protect identities.)
Soon we can envision two internets. AOL and the old Internet. As usual, AOL will not share the majority of it's content with us, and some of us will not share out content with them (see above). However the tourists will start to fade away as we cease to offer them the lowbrow contents they so greatly desire.
P.S. No, my site is still available to Aol users as it's the only way my parents (both AOL users)can see their grandson [home.net].
AOL is already censoring discussion of the merger (Score:4)
Re:Just say no to anti-trust (Score:5)
In the case you're talking about above, Time-Warner most certainly has a monopoly on providing cable services to homes in a large number of areas in the country. The concern is, particularly with this deal with AOL, that they will erect barriers preventing others from providing Internet access over those cable lines.
Now, if you don't see the kind of problems this could cause, I suggest you call up Time-Warner and ask them for cable-modem access to the Internet. If you are lucky enough to be one of their customers who actually even has access to the service, now tell them that you want to hook up a Linux box to that service, now tell them at you want a static IP, now tell them that you want to run a little web server, now tell them that you want encrypted access to control to your e-mail... etc.
Guess what? Somewhere in that conversation you are going to hear "NO!", and then you're going to realize that not only did you get a "NO!", but that you have nowhere else to turn to to get such services. Then you're going to realize that for someone to offer a competitive service they'd have to overcome rediculous barriers to entry (in terms of initial capital and time), and at any time Time-Warner/AOL could put them out of business before they even got off the ground by suddenly offering some of these services. Then you'll realize that as a consequence nobody will try to get in to that business. Then you're going to realize that because you have noone else to turn to, they have no reason to rush to provide all these other services. Then you'll realize that you'll be lucky if your grandkids get to see those services, and if they do, that Time-Warner/AOL will be under no competitive pressure to keep the price low...
...and then you'll understand what anti-trust law is there for, and why we need it.
AOL Time Warner is about cable internet (Score:5)
This isn't very good for AOL financially in the short term. They are being widely downgraded, because the new AOL TIme Warner will almost certainly have a lower growth rate than AOL by itself. Only fear could have motivated a stunt like this.
AOL has no interest in running a TV/movie studio/network. There isn't much added value in owning both TV/film and Internet properties. This isn't about TV/Internet convergence.
AOL Time Warner is not a vertical monopoly any more than Time Warner or AOL were by themselves. AOL is one of the few internet companies with a steady, regular income, and this is because they are not especially involved in the content industry. They are an ISP - a very successful one. Time Warner is completely hamstrung by FCC regulations - they can't stop showing TV shows from competing studios on their networks, nor will they stop selling WB programmes to competing networks. CNN will still be seen on AT&T cable systems, and AOL doesn't open Time Warner up to new sources of TV or film content. AOL will continue to host websites and marketing for competing studios and TV networks. They recently signed a deal with PBS to carry some of their web content.
AOL and Time Warner will still have completely separate management structures. AOL has no background in mass media, and has no great reason to try to acquire some.
I will bet that a few years down the line, AOL will spin off the TV and film studios and the TV networks and just keep the cable infrastructure. That's the only part of Time Warner that makes any sense as a part of AOL.
Re:Here's a question I have (Score:5)
Tim Beherendsen dun said:
Liberal? United States media in general? Liberal?
*sound of yours truly ROTFLMAO*
Just in case you didn't know:
The media in the US may best be described as right-wing moderate. The US (both in government and in media) is, by far, the most conservative (in the "right-wing" sense) in the Western world; even Canadian and British media are more liberal (and the Brits seem to whinge on how things have gone more conservative--listen, please don't whinge to ME on it unless they take off the watershed hour, stop allowing shows taking the piss of the priesthood, stop allowing barenekked women, and stop allowing you to say "fuck" and "shit" on British TV--NONE of which we in the States would EVER be able to get away with--a friend from Belfast was actually SHOCKED at how conservative American media is, and he's from a part of the world where people are trying very hard to kill each other over which flavour of Christianity is best :P).
America has swung so far to the right over a period of 25 years that, if Richard Nixon were alive today and running on the platform he ran on in his last election, he would be considered a liberal in America's present political climate. (No, I am not making this up. The scary thing is, Richard Nixon was considered an arch-conservative in his time.)
The United States is (and yes, I know some of you will accuse me of fearmongering and all, but I think I have grounds to say this--considering I grew up around psychofundies for 25 years of my life) precariously close to joining the rest of the countries that are more conservative than the US--that is, becoming a theocracy (just in this case a "Christian" one rather than an "Islamic" or "Jewish" one). The UnChristian Coalition has effectively taken over the political apparatus of the Republican party in over thirty states; even more frighteningly, other Religious Reich groups are also involved (most notably branch groups of the American Family Association--the selfsame group trying to censor public library feeds under its branch group "Family Friendly Libraries"), they are now trying to go for the Reform Party as well, and the US Taxpayers Party (which is, for all intents and purposes, a fundy-"Christian" political party that also has links to nastier groups yet like "Christian Identity" [who spout the canard that the US is the real "Chosen Nation", that the Jews are just faking at being Jews, and who think all non-white people should be "ethnically cleansed"], and has as part of its platform the establishment of a fundy theocracy in the US [many of the party leaders are "Christian Reconstructionists", who preach the canard that the Founding Fathers really meant the US to be a fundamentalist theocracy and who even want to restore Leviticus-style punishments such as mandatory stoning for being gay or sassing your parents]) has gotten on the ballots in a frightening number of states.
The swing to the right has been both among Republicans and Democrats, and can be attributed largely to fundy groups pressuring both parties (the Religious Reich is really one of the best-funded groups in the US; several Fortune 500 CEOs, such as the head of Coors, the head of Wal-Mart/Sam's Club, and the head of Amway have sat or do sit on the board of the Coalition for National Policy, a secretive "think tank"/planning committee of the Religious Reich), as well as pushing for cuts in taxes and calls to "protect the children" which the fundies are all too welcome to take advantage of. (Here's something I bet you didn't know: You know why fundies push so much for vouchers and school funding to be cut? Part of the actual "party line" for the Religious Reich is to eventually get rid of public schools altogether and FORCE people to go to religious schools--because they know damn well that if they can get the kids young it is unlikely they will walk away [especially from the groups that use coercive tactics, and "Bible-based cults" are the single largest group in the US using coercive tactics aside from the Scientologists].)
Just about the only time media DOES show any sort of liberal bias or even moderate bias is if the owner has some sort of pet project (Turner, for instance, has environmental issues as a "pet project"). Otherwise, things are geared towards big business, the conservative leaders, and calls to "protect the children". (I, for one, worry about the news swinging even FARTHER to the right; AOL has been known to censor the word "breast" even in discussions of breast cancer, as well as have other objectionable practices in censoring chat-rooms and the like [and it doesn't bloody well stop the people trading porn on AOL, trust me].)
The other thing that worries me is this--Most media is owned by three or four large corporations nowadays. As someone noted, they can literally make or break elections (I strongly suspect this is why third parties have such a hard time in the US; they never even get the airtime to discuss platforms and thus never get to be in debates, etc...you'd honestly think the Green Party would get press, seeing as Ralph Nader is head, but most folks don't even know the US HAS political parties besides Republican, Democrat, Reform, and maybe Libertarian). Combine that with the fact that on average, only 25-50% of registered voters vote in elections.
I keep thinking the last time things were set up like that and the last times a nation had such a massive rush to the right...were Afghanistan, Iran, and Germany in the early 30's...one group having so much control over anything is a Bad Thing in my opinion, and I'm naturally distrustful of it.
But by any means, the US media is NOT liberal. Ask your friends outside the US just how liberal it is (as long as they aren't from an Islamic nation, nearly all will tell you it isn't liberal at all, and I'd be willing to put money on it--and the only gambling I do, period, is on the horses at Churchill Downs on Derby Day and on the Powerball when it hits $50 million :) so it can't be said I'm a gambling fool :)
New paradigm... It makes sense (Score:5)
The AOL TW merger shows that this new behemoth would be the King of Content on all media.
The adoption of Linux by the waning Kinng of Hardware suggests that open source is the way of the future. Open hardware is sure to follow open software eventually, though not without strong opposition from the patent and trademark holders.
But, the people in control of proprietary hardware are sure to get a clue from the AOL TW super-entity. Content is the new commodity.
Linux has taken away the means, of controlling the means, of producing content. The Internet has given any Joe Shmoe the means to distribute it. The Computer has given everyone the tool to create content. Content is the new commodity.
To make any money, and have any power, you have to control CONTENT, not how it's made, not how it's distributed. It's economies of scale in the context of content.
AOL TW can out-content EVERYONE now. They can producte is faster, in greater volume, due to their bulk. They can distribute it faster and more cheaply. They can shout louder and longer than anyone else. With the exception of the occasional "I kiss you" and a little hampsterdance, nobody will have the opportunity to get unbiased media, simply because of the volume (yes, I mean it both ways) of AOL TW.
Now were back to the old days. Hammers and chisels (Linux) are free. It takes talent to be Michelangelo - and he died piss poor.
It's now all about the production of content. Technology is free and plentiful, and we're all free to use it. But, just because you have freedom of speach (or tech) does not mean you have anything intelligent to say. Or worse yet, you do, but nobody wants to hear it because AOL TW is showing interactive Jerry Springer.
This is a good thing (Score:5)
Remember AOL bought Time/Warner, not the other way around. That means AOL's internet presence is more valuable than the sum of all the many properties that make up Time/Warner Bros./CNN/HBO et. al.
Time/Warner doesn't need distribution, it already owns cable properties. It has gobs of content to put on those cable lines, nonetheless, it agreed to be purchased by a company with revenues only a third as large as itself!
This changes the valuation of everything, all internet companies are more valuable immediately, the future really is the internet, not magazines, television, cd's, movies, or any of the old media.
And That is a Good Thing (tm) because it is us who will create that future - we have very little access to older media forms, we don't own magazines, movie studios, record labels, television channels, etc. - but we are creating their replacements, and this merger shows that what we are creating is more valuable than what currently exists.
Ultimately what happened here is Time/Warner, the largest, most powerful, media company in the world agreed to be bought by an internet startup, in order to get better access to the internet, (read: to the future.) For without that access, that presence, they realized they would not be players in that future.
In terms of monopoly fears, Case and Levin announced that they would be supporting open access to their cable lines for isp competition, as soon as the exclusive contract with @home/excite ends next year, so we will be able to pick our isp over our cable modem, it need not be AOL/Time. Furthermore, Time/Warner is not the only source of content in the world, not even a third of it, this means the other content providers will be looking to partner with internet companies quickly, for fear of being left out.
We have created the future, in places like slashdot - AOL is nothing without it's subscribers, creating a dynamic little world - much like slashdot, albiet in a narrower way. I am looking forward to it, the reigns of power are in our hands now.
Alekzandr
AOL Time Warner not a monopoly. (Score:5)
As for Time Warner, There are loads of other HUGE media organizations in this world that behave much more foolishly. Let's talk about Disney and censorship. Let's talk about Sony and closed standards.
As for broadcasters/cable/sattelite services, Time Warner is hardly the only one out there. In fact where I used to live Time Warner sold to AT&T. There's PLENTY of other competion out there in the form of cable and sattelite companies. Not to mention FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS.
Yes AOL Time Warner will be huge, they might also be evil, but they're not a monopoly.
-Rich
Didn't they say the same thing about Sony? (Score:5)
*Everyone* worried about Sony, and using virtually the same exact argument that Katz used: that by owning the entire supply chain, Sony would rule the world. Sony (and by extension "Japan Inc.") would completely dominate entertainment, and completely wipe out any American participation in what is the largest sector of our economy in California: entertainment.
So why isn't this a Sony world? Why isn't every movie we see, every television show we watch, every band we listen to a Sony branded title? Why aren't we watching movies in Sony theaters using Sony A/V equipment eating Sony branded popcorn and Sony branded cola, as the pundits of the time predicted?
Simple.
First, at the time, Sony only understood electronics. Sony's management didn't (and still) don't get entertainment--and for five years the Japanese board of directors attempted to micromanage Sony's entertainment devisions like they did Sony's electronics division. And they floundered. Eventually Sony so screwed up the entertainment divisions that they had to divest themselves of some of the entertainment assets, and re-hire the American corporate heads they originally canned during the merger. So while today Sony still owns Sony Pictures, creates a few television shows, and are present in a big way in the music industry, they do so in fairly independant divisions who compete with each other as much as they cooperate.
The second reason why Sony didn't wipe out other entertainment groups was because anti-trust laws and good business sense didn't permit Sony from locking out non-Sony product from the Sony pipeline, or from preventing non-Sony companies and individuals from purchasing Sony services and equipment. That is, a movie produced by Fox has just as much chance to get shown at a United theater as a movie produced by Sony, on largly the same terms. In order for a horizontal company (a company such as Sony with a large number of holdings in a large number of different industries) to survive, they cannot rely on only themselves as a customer. Otherwise, how successful do you think a Sony Playstation would be if only Sony employees could buy one?
I think Sony is an extremely instructive example as to the future of AOL/Time Warner. It's pretty clear to me that the AOL managers only understand the Internet--their success in doing other forms of content production has been poor at best. By and large most of the content AOL has produced for their service has been produced by others--since AOL went to a flat-rate price structure they have produced almost no original content. And what content AOL has tried to produce hasn't exactly been all that stunning in the first place--more like "feel good" content which played well to the press while AOL's users bypassed it to descend into sex-related chat rooms.
And anyone who has followed the Babylon 5 news groups knows that Time Warner is operated as a bunch of independant little fifedoms--very much the same way Sony now operates. So it's not like the different divisions within Time Warner cooperate towards taking over the world in the first place.
Me, I don't think the AOL/Time Warner merger spells bad news for anyone. Except perhaps for the AOL/Time Warner employees who will get laid off over the next five years as the whole conglomerate downsizes as the AOL managers learn the right way to do media.
A Vertical Monopoly (Score:5)
The reason the Microsoft monopoly was so much more dangerous is because it was a horizontal monopoly. In essence, a roadblock that everyone had to go through. The merger between AOL and T/W does not represent the same type of threat. There is no roadblock I need to go through. With a vertical monopoly, I can simply go elsewhere. Not a threat at all.