February, 2000      Diablo Blue      Page 9

I don't know how many hats Steve Case will wear in his new role as chairman of America Online (AOL) and Time Warner (TW), but he has shown at least two faces to the world over the years. He has always been more than willing to change positions drastically if it appears profitable -- and I fully expect another major flip-flop as a result of the megadeal.
Case was one of the early and most strident critics who accused Microsoft of monopolistic practices. Then, of course, he made a deal in which AOL and Microsoft would include each other's software in customer offerings.
More recently, he has been a passionate advocate for open access to the Internet, with special emphasis on AT&T's burgeoning cable system (formerly TCI). AOL was the major financial backer of efforts to force such access across the U.S. Case & Co. have bankrolled major lobbying efforts to convince federal and local government officials they should require cable companies to allow access by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In effect, Case wanted government to intervene on his behalf.
If the merger goes through as planned, and apparently it will, Case will have access to a high-speed network in Time Warner's Road Runner cable modem service. My first thought when I heard news of the deal was: "What will Case have to say about open access now?"
Surprise, Surprise! Within a few days of the announcement, consumer groups who had joined in the open access effort noted a change in attitude from AOL.
"America Online has been a terrific advocate of open access... but [AOL Chairman] Steve Case now is being very ambiguous" said Erik Sten, a city commissioner in Portland, Ore. Portland is trying to force cable operators to open their networks to rival Internet operators. "So this merger underscores the fact that government action is absolutely needed to ensure open access and a fair playing field."
Now, instead of asking local governments to help open cable access, spokespersons were talking about taking the open-access debate "out of Washington and out of City Hall" and putting it in "the marketplace."
Open-access advocates were alarmed. AOL "has spent millions of dollars to lobby city councils, the Federal Communications Commission and Congress on open access", said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of Consumers Union. "This is clearly a pullback from their previous stance."
As expected, Case and cohorts protested and pledged to open Time Warner's cable networks to rival Internet providers and to back open access.
But when it comes to open access to AOL Instant Messenger, Case speaks out of the other side of his mouth. There, too, he asserted his support of standard protocols for instant messaging -- but that was as far as it went. Read on...
He is fond of telling us that AOL believes fervently in building a "global medium... a service that could bring people together to share common interests and passions and to build communities based on them. We've worked hard to make it as easy as possible for people to stay in touch, renew old ties and form new relationships."
Great sentiment, that. But does he really mean it? His idea of bringing people together appears to stop at AOL's boundaries.
When Microsoft and Yahoo released instant-messaging software in July 1999, Case and AOL moved quickly to block access to their 40 million users of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). When AT&T released its IM Here instant messaging service in December 1999, AOL again threw up barricades to "protect" its customers from communication with the outside world.
This is a great way to bring people together, right?
AOL issued blizzards of press releases claiming "it only wants to preserve its customers' privacy" and that efforts by other companies to create interoperable messaging services amount to "hacking into AIM." This is utter hypocrisy. The only thing Case wants to preserve is AOL's dominance of instant messaging for as long as he can.
If this isn't so, why has AOL dragged its feet on joining the Internet Engineering Task Force (IEFT) efforts to develop standard protocols for instant messaging?
Again, Case has said AOL supports the concept but there has been no action to back up his words. An Open Letter sent to Case in July 1999 by eight companies (AT&T, Activerse, ExciteAtHome, Infoseek, Microsoft, Prodigy, Tribal Voice and Yahoo) requesting AOL to join an effort to create a single industry-wide standard for instant messaging failed to draw a positive response. Result: a big zero. Personally, I expect AOL's support for access via Time Warner's cable networks to evaporate. Except for AOL and CompuServe, which is part of the Case empire.
To sum up this Case, an expression from the old cowboy-and-Indian westerns seems to fit best: "He speaks with forked tongue."