Previous message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03146.html --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:41:58 -0500 To: declanat_private From: Gregory Wright <gwrightat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users Good morning, Declan - I think the point that most people seem to miss here is that AOL's AIM and ICQ services are owned and operated by AOL, and as such they have the right to set the terms of use - and this includes not allowing non-AIM or non-ICQ clients to access their service. There are numerous reasons for such policies, including protecting their own network and servers (for which most AIM users pay NOTHING to use, I might add) from potential issues introduced by software outside of their control, and also whatever revenue they get from displaying the advertisements in the contact list or message window. This is not a question of anti-trust: consumers still have choices in IM services, as mentioned by B.K., such as Yahoo!, MSN and others... and they are just as viable as AIM or ICQ. The solution here is simple - if you don't like the terms of service, don't use the service - nobody is putting a gun to your head to make you use AIM or ICQ. If you feel that strongly about it, convince your friends or associates to use a different service, don't just whine about a company doing what they are perfectly within their rights to do. -- Gregory Wright (<gwrightat_private>) Ravyn Multimedia Frederick, MD --- From: "dan sieradski" <mobiustrip44at_private> To: declanat_private Subject: aol/trillian Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:50:40 -0500 Regarding Trillian and AIM: One of the conditions of AOL's merger with Time Warner was that they had to make their IM service interoperable with other clients, ie., Trillian. Unfortunately the interpretation of the ruling handed down by the FCC was rendered with loophole that said that this did not have to happen until AOL began integrating video into their IM client. However I called the FCC to double check on this, and the individual I spoke to said that, while this was the case, it's possible that there may be another way to interpret the ruling and thus, if I could find anything in the legalese to say otherwise, we might get them to expand their interpretation to require immediate interoperability. Being that I'm not a lawyer, I offer this link to the Politech community, which I was directed to by the FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw-decision.html If you can find a way, based on this document, to show that the AOL is posing a threat in some monopolisitc mannner, we still might be able to get 'em. .mobius1 http://www.the44.net/blog --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:37:39 -0300 From: Fernando Cassia <fcassiaat_private> To: declanat_private, bkdelongat_private Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users When you log into AIM, you are using AOL's own AIM servers. And they use the same "screen name" validation for all sorts of logins (not just IM). AIM userIDs and passwords can also be AOL (online service) logins and passwords. I'd said they have a right to say what software they approve and which one they don't. In any case, if you are so pissed at "the big bad AOL empire that eats live little children for breakfast" I'd suggest you go to http://www.jabber.com, learn about the proposed open "jabber" protocol, and then visit http://jabberzilla.mozdev.org to discover a free, open, xul-based (and hence truly multi-platform!) implementation of a Jabber client, that you can add to the sidebar of Mozilla and other mozilla-based browsers like Netscape 6.21. With a jabber client, you can connect (by the use of "gateways") to your ICQ, Jabber and other IM services, at the same time, with a single client. Regards Fernando Buenos Aires, Argentina PS: I'm curious about how can an instant messenger "encrypt" content, on a single side, if the user on the other end might or might now use the same IM application. Also let me question the strenght of such encryption... ---- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:34:47 -0500 To: declanat_private From: "B.K. DeLong" <bkdelongat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users At 10:04 AM 02/15/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Which is bullshit. AOLIM Doesn't have nearly the AOLIM features that >Trillian has and I'm PISSED that AOL wants me to use a more insecure >product over an innovative one that provided more of a degree of security, >logging etc. This sooo smacks of anti-competitive practices. A GREAT suggestion from another list I'm on: Donate to Trillian so they can continue to work on solutions to the problem: http://www.trillian.cc/donate.html or directly to paypal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?return=http%3A//www.ceruleanstudios.com/thanks.html&item_name=Trillian&submit.x=44&submit.y=8&business=smw%40ceruleanstudios.com&undefined_quantity=1&cmd=_xclick And through Amazon: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T3CB0UWUEY2A9H -- B.K. DeLong bkdelongat_private 617.877.3271 --- From: "David Howe" <DaveHoweat_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <20020215100449.B32098at_private> Subject: Re: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:53:36 -0000 > Which is bullshit. AOLIM Doesn't have nearly the AOLIM features that > Trillian has and I'm PISSED that AOL wants me to use a more insecure > product over an innovative one that provided more of a degree of security, > logging etc. This sooo smacks of anti-competitive practices. > > Am I right? Who's working on a anti-trust case against AOL? Sign me up, dammit. Its the same shell game they were playing with MS and the MSN client - As far as I know though, they *do* have the right to insist you use only their authorized client to connect to their servers (or indeed, limit usage to just their own customers). It is a server they pay for and a free service they provide.. Just as a website can limit use to just MS IE users (but will get slated for doing so) --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:14:04 -0500 To: declanat_private From: Derek Balling <dreddat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users You should point out (or might want to point out) that even though Yahoo has made statements regarding AOL's "lack of openness" to third-party clients, recent discussion on the libyahoo mailing list, from Yahoo employees, indicates that Yahoo is about to also crack down on and actively prevent third-party clients from connecting to the service. D ---- To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users From: Rich Wellner <richat_private> Date: 15 Feb 2002 10:18:28 -0600 Declan, I don't know if you want to turn this into a software advertising forum, but FYI, I have no connection with (except as a user) a fine piece of software called Everybuddy (http://www.everybuddy.com). It has many of the features that Trillian does (all I think except encryption) and is open source (despite being registered at .com). Over the last few weeks I haven't had any trouble with AIM even while they lock out Trillian. I recommend it as another way to fight the power. rw2 -- http://poliglut.com Because the oval office has no corners --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:28:44 -0600 From: "Neil @ geekshanty.com" <poli1at_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. DeLong. I also use Trillian and am also unable to connect to AOL with it. But to suggest that a lawsuit be filed against AOL for denying access because of using an unsupported client is outrageous. AOL is paying for the servers and network that powers the IM network that you are using. If they want you to use their IM client, they have a right to do that. If a website decides that only Internet Explorer users should be able to view their content, they can do it. They are paying for the website, they can decide who gets to see it. If you really want to use AOL's IM network, then you'll use their supported client. I agree that Trillian is the better of the two clients, but if AOL wants to play these games its their call. If it really bothered you so much you could always switch IM networks. It is a hassle to switch over you and all your contacts, but its a far better solution that suing a company for putting free resources online. As long as there are other viable alternatives out there, I don't see any reason to have a lawsuit. Let the "invisible hand" of the market take care of this. If AOL blocking Trillian bothers a lot of people then they will switch networks, causing AOL to rethink its strategy. -Neil --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:14:23 -0600 (CST) From: Patty Langasek* <pattyat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users Declan, After sharing the information about AOL blocking Trillian with my husband, he responded with: Jabber (http://www.jabber.com/, http://www.jabber.org/) is a truly open instant-messaging system intended to replace AOL IM. Although there are commercial interests involved (Jabber, Inc. builds proprietary solutions based on the system), the fact that there are Open Source implementations available, and that anyone can run their own jabber server, provides built-in protection against the sorts of monopoly behaviors AOL is engaging in. Some of the Jabber clients have support for many of Trillian's best features, including (theoretically -- don't know if any of it still works) support for ICQ and AIM protocols and PGP-based encryption & authentication. Patty Langasek Website Promotion and Hosting Services DSL Administration Internet Express http://www.netexpress.net --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:27:59 -0500 From: Nat <nathaniel.echolsat_private> X-Sender: natat_private To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> cc: politechat_private Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users > Which is bullshit. AOLIM Doesn't have nearly the AOLIM features that > Trillian has and I'm PISSED that AOL wants me to use a more insecure > product over an innovative one that provided more of a degree of security, > logging etc. This sooo smacks of anti-competitive practices. > Am I right? Who's working on a anti-trust case against AOL? Sign me up, dammit. Every story I've read that goes into any detail indicates that the problem is with using AOL's buddy lists, which requires accessing AOL's own servers. The IM protocol itself, on the other hand, is easily used and AOL cannot stop it. It's just that an AIM client without buddy lists isn't very useful (frankly, 'ntalk' is already all I need- I've never used AIM). Thus AOL is continually patching its servers to keep Trillian, Yahoo, MS, etc. out of it. This seems quite fair. So, at issue is whether AOL has the right to prevent other companies from using its servers with their software. If this is not the case, I'd love to hear it, but if my understanding is correct I'm 100% on AOL's side. I find any arguments about monopoly power pretty absurd. -Nat --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:40:03 -0800 (PST) From: Grady Hare <gradyhareiiiat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users To: declanat_private It is not really that simple. I remember (and am trying to dig it up here) clicking the i agree button when i first installed the aol software. you would have had to do that to get a screenname anyway. in the agreement i am positive that there was some language to the effect of no unauthorized client software. and i signed up WAY before the MS troubles with clients. What it comes down to is that AOL owns the servers and pays for all the bandwidth on their end. they want to have all of us users use their client (ie read their embedded advertising). that is how they expect to pay for the bandwidth et al. Even knowing that i entered in to this agreement i used the trillian software because it was spiffy. It is entirely possible that according to that agreement aol could wipe my account and force me to adopt a new name and let all the people i have communicated with over the years know the cumorglasabhain is no more. they chose (so far) not to go that road. I consider myself fortunate in this small respect. That said, I really liked Trillian and hope sincerely that they can find some way to come to terms with AOL. It allowed many things that aol's didnot. Most importantly for me was the fact that it allowed file transfers with me only having to open up one port in the firewall. Something even the also spiffy GAIM client doesn't manage on the Mandrake box Now that i think of it maybe i should go to the other room and see if AOL is kicking them off too. nope not yet. --- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:46:50 -0500 From: Jamie McCarthy <jamieat_private> Subject: Re: FC: AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging users To: declanat_private declanat_private (Declan McCullagh) writes: > Am I right? Who's working on a anti-trust case against AOL? Sign > me up, dammit. Nah, AOL's toast. Microsoft's instant-messaging software will crush AOL long before such a suit would be resolved. It's just a matter of time, give it a couple of years. All AOL had on their side was the largest installed base of both the software -- triple that of MSN Messenger in late 2000 -- and the pipes to connect tens of millions of users. Network-effect math used to mean something. But last summer Microsoft started shipping its own IM software along with the operating system (precisely what the antitrust suit was intended to prevent). As long as Microsoft's product isn't too much worse than the prevailing standard, they win. -- Jamie McCarthy jamieat_private --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 11:50:21 PST