Re: Belated "Netscape Acquisition" opinion

[rd@cottonwood.com (Rick Dahlgren)]

Robert Reese wrote:
>The real threat to the consumer may lie in the damage AOL might do while
>handling sensitive business accounts, as well as having significant control
>over web-content.  Control likened to that of censors, restricting various
>rights of a large number of people.  Of course, that is an issue for another
>list, not this one... and I shall leave this one issue at that, except to
>say that there is more than one way to hamper a consumer than just
>economics.

I've been harping on this list and in court for 5 years that the control
over delivery of content and the related revenue is what all of this is
about.  All of the technology means nothing without on-going revenue.  In
Omaha's US West interactive tv trial, a phone company was positioned to
take a nick on each sweater purchased from JC Penney's and others
participating on US Avenue.  Every movie ticket purchased for a theatre
through US West's GOTV would provide revenue.....but the big deal was and
is pay-per-view.

The related technology deployed in the delivery of content or which enables
transactions, when inappropriately designed in a proprietary fashion so as
not to interoperate universally, or at least on a publicly disclosed basis,
enslaves consumers and eliminates competition.

It worked for US West in Omaha.  3DO provided a key for that door and US
West was the only one issued a copy of the key in a secret agreement that
defied the law for disclosure....Computer III as written in the USC.  

Recently the FCC abandoned Computer III, opting to ammend the
Communications Act to include, as yet, undisclosed and untested in a court
of law, language to suppliment anticompetitive safeguards.

At the senate hearing the other day, one  witness made reference to the
numerous exclusive deals AOL has entered into.

>From our experience with US West, it would seem highly plausable that AOL,
or for that matter, any provider of enabling technology tied with content,
would have a great incentive to secretly embark upon a strategy to compete
in an anticompetitive manner.

I'm very concerned about Netscape, particularly with the coverage lately
about the Netscape "refugees" who are seeking safe and sane haven by
abruptly leaving the company.

AOL has a history of occasionally getting a little big for its britches
with metered access, resistance to internet access, and a generally poor
history of service.

Now, however, its bought some new bigger britches, and we'll have to wait
until some of its deals start to impact consumers to see where it really
stands.  

AOL's recent and sudden love affair with US West through OpenNet coalition
makes me very suspicious that there is more to the Netscape purchase than
return on the immediate investment with server sales.

Rick Dahlgren
Cottonwood Communications
rd@cottonwood.com