[Newspoetry] [Fwd: AOL Watch: Is AOL Blocking Your Mail? (fwd)]
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Tue Jan 18 09:09:03 CST 2000
Bigger is not better, when it comes to monopoly.
Mike
Dale Wertz wrote:
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> Date sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:39:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Cassel <destiny at wco.com>
> To: AOL Watch <aolwatch at aolwatch.org>
> Subject: AOL Watch: Is AOL Blocking Your Mail?
>
> I s A O L B l o c k i n g Y o u r M a i l ?
>
> ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
>
> On September 6, the AOL Watch newsletter was sent to its 50,000 readers.
> But subscribers on AOL didn't receive it.
>
> Canvassing nearly two dozen of the list's AOL subscribers, all reported
> the same thing: the newsletter didn't reach their AOL mailboxes. Had
> AOL's "spam" filters made a mistake? Or was the newsletter being deleted
> because it had included the phone number for cancelling AOL accounts?
>
> AOL's postmaster didn't respond to requests for comment. But AOL's
> privacy policy specifies AOL can read your e-mail "to protect the
> company's rights and property." Have they already invoked that clause?
> In July of 1997 Simutronics announced that AOL "without our knowledge, has
> been deleting all e-mail from Simutronics addresses to AOL addresses." A
> gaming newsletter also reported e-mail from gaming company Sierra wasn't
> reaching AOL addresses, and both incidents were cited in a lawsuit filed
> by a third company.
>
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0066.html
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html
>
> Ziff-Davis News uncovered another incident, in which AOL, equating an
> internet web site's "Thank you" notes to customers with unsolicited
> commercial e-mail, began deliberately blocking the e-mail.
> (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,4436,2139310,00.html)
> And one former AOL content partner told AOL Watch their goodbye to
> staffmembers suspiciously failed to arrive.
>
> In fact, AOL's Terms of Service also states they may block access to web
> sites that are "injurious to AOL" -- and they may have already begun.
> The author of a book about on-line dating -- titled "You've Got Male" --
> filed a lawsuit in November alleging AOL prevented their users from
> accessing her site! Reuters reported that AOL had earlier demanded she
> stop selling the book and to never re-print it. "My attorney told me,
> 'You may as well change the name of the book," the author commented,
> "because you can't fight a big company like that'."
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-122453.html?tag=st.cn.1.
> http://www.youve-got-male.com/rocky_mountian_news_story.htm
>
> AOL has the power to control whether publishers can reach their audience.
> The "disappearance" of the last edition of this newsletter
> ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0102.html ) meant that many AOL Watch
> readers didn't received a post for nearly ten months. (Ironically, that
> edition had been titled "Breaking AOL's Grip".) AOL subscribers
> concerned at the thought of a corporation rifling through your mailbox,
> picking and choosing what e-mail you'll receive and which web pages you'll
> access, should also consider: when it comes to simply delivering mail
> reliably, AOL has a bad record. At various times AOL has sporadically
> refused to deliver mail from several other internet services, including
> the Microsoft Network, FlexNet, Fuse.net, En.com, Cybercom.net, and
> Gorilla.net.
>
> http://www.aolwatch.org/flexnet.htm
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16907,00.html
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0011.html
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0009.html
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0081.html
> http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0080.html
>
> One December, AOL even stopped displaying thousands of web pages for over
> ten days. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0031.html )
>
> But AOL has affected the flow of online communication in other ways, too.
> On December 24 the Washington Post reported that internet service
> providers have been "bombarded with calls" from subscribers, most
> complaining that after installing AOL's 5.0 software, "non-AOL Internet
> software is disabled." Beta-testers warned AOL about the problem, the
> Post and other news outlets have noted -- but the warnings were apparently
> ignored.
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/print/0,1089,8_216641,00.html
>
> Anger over the glitch proves noticeable numbers of AOL users now choose
> non-AOL services for their net access. Though AOL appears to have
> disregarded them, the users show that thousands of internet services exist
> for dissatisfied AOL subscribers, and that AOL doesn't have a monopoly on
> delivering service to homes like the cable television companies that
> deliver cable programming.
>
> But has AOL discovered a way to change that? A proposed merger with
> Time-Warner grants AOL access to that company's cable system -- and some
> observers fear other net services won't get the same access. Then only AOL
> would be able to offer high-speed net access through the cable! In his
> most-recent Community Update, Steve Case gloated that the deal gives AOL
> "an unprecedented ability to drive commerce" -- but besides exclusive
> rights to lucrative advertising and sales money, AOL could also determine
> what news and information is available. One columnist suggested that the
> real appeal of the merger "hinges on the ability to control both
> customers' ability to access the Internet and what they see, hear and read
> when they're online."
>
> http://www.alternet.org/PublicArchive/Hazen011400.html
>
> A variation on picking-and-choosing what subscribers receive will then
> become a reality! Senator Patrick Leahy warned that "we will have to look
> closely at whether it makes public policy sense to consolidate control of
> content, cable and Internet service distribution channels."
> ( http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/releases/0001/0110_4144.html )
> Even before AOL's proposed merger, Forbes magazine had suggested AOL as
> "potential defendants" in a Department of Justice monopoly break-up.
> ( http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/1129/6413054a.htm )
> Now Senator Leahy wants Americans to think about the future. "At some
> point, all of this concentration and convergence has implications for
> consumers, because it will minimize competition and choice, giving us
> fewer voices and fewer pipelines in the marketplace."
>
> Ultimately the Senator cautions about the need to "make sure that all that
> information does not become funneled and controlled by just two or three
> sources."
>
> Resistance to the merger is already building.
> ( http://www.nypost.com/business/22004.htm ) Ralph Nader's Consumer
> Project on Technology warns that "AT&T and Time-Warner are both trying
> to set up broad band internet services that can discriminate among content
> providers, and effectively degrade services offered by competitors"
> ( http://www.cptech.org/ecom/aol-tw.html ) The European Union also
> announced that they'll investigate the implications of the proposed deal,
> and Canada's Ministry of Industry is already being urged to move against
> it.
>
> http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,121604,00.html
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33668,00.html
>
> Concerned netizens have a way to voice their concerns. "People should
> contact the agencies that will review the merger," the Consumer Project
> on Technology's Jamie Love told AOL Watch. "That will include the Federal
> Communications Commission, as well as the Department of Justice or the
> Federal Trade Commission." There's also the ultimate protest:
> cancelling your service! One celebrity is already seeking suggestions for
> ways to replace his AOL account -- Michael Moore, director of "Roger and
> Me." He explained his feelings on his personal web page. "If just a few
> people end up owning all the ways for us to communicate with each other,
> and they decide what will be communicated and what won't, then we are all
> in deep trouble." ( http://www.michaelmoore.com/01122000.html ) Moore
> notes that "The incredible beauty of this Internet is that you and I can
> bypass all of them and talk to each other directly. They hate that!"
>
> Fear of the new world order showed in dark humor circulating the internet.
>
> http://graphics.nytimes.com/00/01/11/oped/011100opart.GIF
> http://www.globeandmail.ca/series/cartoon/0112.html
>
> One AOL Watch reader joked there might be consequences for cable viewers.
> "Attempting to switch channels will result in the message 'A request to
> the host has taken longer than expected. If the problem persists...' "
> And at least one Time-Warner employee with an AOL account suggested to AOL
> Watch that the deal has a bright side. "Perhaps now I'll be able to stay
> connected for more than three minutes without being cut off."
>
> Even the technology editor for Salon -- an AOL content partner -- saw the
> merger as a call to arms. "AOL-Time Warner's interests are now aligned
> opposite those of a freewheeling, independent Internet," their Managing
> Editor wrote. "So let's give 'em hell -- while we still can."
> (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/14/aol_deal/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=)
> In fact, those who value the freedom of their speech over the interests of
> corporations are already on the move. Unidentified web users have already
> claimed the domains anti-aol.org and aoltimewarnersucks.com , and they've
> even installed a pornography page at aolwebmaster.com. (It's slogan is
> "So sleazy, no wonder I'm number one.") "Web Vengeance" software took it
> further, using a parody doppelganger -- "America Offline" -- to illustrate
> a program letting users shoot bullet-holes into any web page.
>
> http://www.segasoft.com/webvengeance/index.html
>
> AOL's unspoken desire to control all media may have met its match in
> Georgia resident Christopher Alan. He claimed the domain stephencase.com
> -- then composed a rockabilly song about it and put it up at the URL.
>
> "When you bought Time-Warner we were all impressed.
> How come you didn't buy your web address?"
>
> The bluesy guitar tune
>
> http://www.stephencase.com,
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/62/christopher_alan_cook.html
>
> served as an important reminder -- that the internet houses millions of
> individuals, each with their own uses for technology. Alan's taunting
> song reaffirms the hope that ultimately consumers will do what *they*
> want... oblivious to what Steve Case wants.
>
> "You may be a big-shot down at AOL,
> but I'm the one that got your URL!"
>
> THE LAST LAUGH
>
> AOL is even having trouble providing users with access to their own
> software. An exit screen ad in September barked "We've got a new and
> improved browser!" -- then told users to "Download now at Keyword: "
> The ad's failure to provide an actual keyword made downloading impossible
> -- and users who guessed keyword "browsers" were told that that keyword
> didn't exist.
>
> AOL's software then suggested users try keyword "brewers."
>
> David Cassel
> More Information - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/000113.html
> http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,121553,00.html
> http://slashdot.org/features/00/01/10/1418231.shtml
> http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/dg113099.htm
> http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1429691.html
> http://www.internetworldnews.com/idx_article.asp?inc=010100/1.01Decon&issue=1.01
>
> ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
>
> Please forward with subscription information. To subscribe to this
> list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom
> of the page at http://www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to
> MAJORDOMO at AOLWATCH.ORG containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH
>
> To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO at AOLWATCH.ORG
> containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH.
>
> ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
More information about the Newspoetry
mailing list