>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:08:44 -0500 >From: James Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list RANDOM-BITS >Subject: [Random-bits] Media Concentration issue: David Cassel on AOL >censoring email critical of AOL > > >*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** > > >------- Forwarded message follows ------- >Date sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:39:00 -0800 (PST) >From: David Cassel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: AOL Watch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >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.h >tml) >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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH > > To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOLWATCH. > >~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ > >_______________________________________________ >Random-bits mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Relations ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 Aligning with Purpose(tm) ... for a Better World ------------------------------------------------------ "We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are building it just outside the constitution's review." -- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
