"AOL: Diversity or Monopoly?"
  06/01/2000

An Associated Press dispatch from Virginia during May offered a glimpse into the plans America On-Line (AOL) has to bring Internet access to schools across the country.

On the surface, the plan sounds terrific. Free Internet access in America’s classrooms is a terrific idea, but perhaps one that is being exploited by a company that is attempting to diversify itself. On the other hand, has AOL become an unlabelled monolith?

AOL, the world’s largest Internet access provider, at least in terms of the number of paid subscribers, offered the free service, AOL@School, as an option to schools because many educators feel Internet content is just too wild for classroom use. Yes, a lot of what AOL is preying on is hype. Facts don’t count. Despite a report earlier this year that porn sites account for less than 10 percent of all pages on the Internet, AOL and other groups propagate the myth that porn is rampant on the Net. To many people, because of the sheer number of hits received in search engines that link to porn sites, almost despite the keyword used, porn sites seem to abound.

Another ploy AOL is using is that students will see no ads on pages - other than the AOL logo, of course, since AOL is such a fine, outstanding company, you see. In addition to the students seeing no ads, other than the AOL logo, they will also not be able to make any online purchases, will be blocked from accessing porn sites, in addition to “other offensive material,” AOL officials said. When I read the part about “other offensive material,” my mind began to wander. What is the exact definition of “offensive material,” and who prepared that definition? My opinion was not solicited, yet I have three children in American schools. The opinions of other parents I know were not solicited. I checked with more than several teachers I know. Their opinions were not asked for, either. One popular adage says you are no more than three people away from knowing anyone in the world. If that’s true, and since AOL didn’t check with any of these people - or people these people knew, then with whom did AOL check? 

I sought out the answers at AOLs @School site. Under the “Safe” heading was a link for more information on the safety features of the software AOL will send to schools. That information warns if schools are not using the AOL@School software and access AOL@School through a browser, officials should consider using third-party filtering software to manage student access. The blurb continued, adding, “If you are using the AOL service to access the AOL@School Web site, you should implement the appropriate AOL Parental Control setting to manage students' access to age appropriate materials.” 

My question still is not answered, though I do see that AOL suggests using software that would preclude students from doing research on breast cancer, learning about a titmouse, or why the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is so feared, especially in the South.

I continued searching the site. I came across the Educator and Administrator options. There it was! Information contained in the teachers section of the AOL@School site contained the information I had been seeking. I did find that AOL likes to frame copyrighted content on the AOL@School site. The one page I found framed was a page from Education World that offers suggestions on ways school administrators can get media coverage.

Is it possible AOL got wind that one of its competitors was eyeing the possibility of offering access to school with blocked sites? After reading the information about the creation of the AOL@School concept and idea, including the framework by educators, the notion that AOL created this program to beat the competition is a very viable idea.

The story AOL tells in the teacher’s section is that AOL brought together a team of educational professionals, though it doesn’t say how many people made up the team. That team represented content experts, classroom educators, administrators, and technology resource teachers. It was this team’s job to provide analysis and evaluation of educational websites for the AOL@School program, which was still in the offing. According to AOL, “the evaluators’ educational and technological experiences added credibility to the rigorous and thorough process.”

Lisa Gibby, representative for the AOL@School program, said AOL worked with many different people while creating the program. She said AOL worked with a group of folks who were associated with the American Association of School Administrators. She also said more than 20 people were involved in reviewing the criteria. 

Before AOL got to the content element of the program, Gibby said, AOL worked with other education groups, as well as the internal AOL teacher advisory committee. Gibby said AOL has no control over determining which sites are included or excluded, and that the third-party contractor providing the filtering software has final say. 

Filtering software is used through the high school level, Gibby said. At that level, she said, parental controls in the AOL software, called safety controls in the AOL@School software, can be used, which would allow high school students to search the entire web. Even at the high school level, she noted, sites are blocked, based on content, which again calls into question the censorship issue.

Gibby did note that other educational content companies are out there, providing AOL some competition, but she was quick to note that AOL provided more - and for free. Almost. AOL@School uses the normal communications software, such as email, instant messaging, and the “safety” controls. 

The team used to define the web sites which would be allowed into the @School program is further described on AOL’s @School website. The page indicates that the team was comprised of “innovative, proven, and dedicated educators met over a period of three days to define criteria for the evaluation of 496 web sites. The criteria consisted of nine elements. Three different team members evaluated each web site against the criteria. Out of the 496 sites reviewed, 291 exceeded the criteria benchmark and were included in the initial version of AOL@School.”

AOL@School web site statement: “Innovative, proven, and dedicated educators. Cute words. I still have no idea who these people are. Let’s look at these, one by one:

“Innovative?” Is AOL saying that these teachers still dress as Abe Lincoln when discussing the Proclamation Emancipation? That was called “innovative” in the early 1990s. 

“Proven?” I have no idea what the intended meaning is in this regard. I know what “combat-proven” means. I know what “proven-under-fire” means. What does the word “proven” mean when talking about someone who is chosen to selected content for a conceptual education portal? 

“Dedicated?” Does that mean the people selected have been in education for more than a year? Does it mean this “dedicated” educator doesn’t go on strike when the local teacher’s union calls for a strike because of a salary dispute? Just what does “dedicated” mean in this regard?

AOL@School web site statement: “They met over a period of three days to define criteria for the evaluation of 496 web sites.” Wow! They met for a whole three days? Was that three 24-hour days, or did they meet for part of each day for three days? Was it 12 hours, 8 hours, or 6 hours? You know, Congress debated pornography several times, attempting to define what it is, exactly. They carefully created a definition in the 1970s. During the debate before the vote on accepting the definition and making it law, one Congressman stood, grabbed a book from his desk, and threw it onto the floor of Congress. “If we approve this definition, then that book - the Holy Bible - is pornographic, too,” was the basic argument he made. That definition died right there. He had a point. The Bible can be pornographic, especially the Song of Solomon. Nevertheless, defining pornography took more than three days. In fact, it’s been almost three decades since Congress’ 1970s attempt. Despite all those years, no definition of pornography is yet on the books. If it takes that long to decide what pornography is, can definitions for content to enrich the minds of tomorrow’s leaders - nay, my children! your children! - be skillfully crafted in but three days? I don’t think so.

AOL@School statement: “The criteria consisted of nine elements. Three different team members evaluated each web site against the criteria.” Nine elements? Not many, and even the nine that were selected are not explicit. Then the issue of three team members making the selections of which web sites would be contained in the program raises still more questions and red flags. How is bias accounted for in this decision-making process? How are these three team members qualified to carefully choose that information?

AOL@School statement: “Out of the 496 sites reviewed, 291 exceeded the criteria benchmark and were included in the initial version of AOL@School.” Nowhere in the criteria published on the site was a grading system explained by AOL. Without a grading system, how did any site “exceed the criteria benchmark” as set by the “team” of experts? Another question would be how was a list of 496 sites selected for the first batch of web site approvals, and why so few?

According to the AOL@School site, “Every web site was evaluated on the basis of: 1) user interface; 2) provides quality content; 3) maintained website; 4) enhances critical thinking; 5) engages students in the learning process; 6) communicates purpose of the site; 7) clear and credible source; 8) addresses multiple learning styles; and 9) interdisciplinary - the website is usable across curricular areas.” See, not much definition in the guidelines. Based on those guidelines, well-designed web sites featuring the Kuma Sutra conceivably meet the requirements.

AOL says its next version of the AOL@School process will “include representatives from leading educational organizations and published rubric connected to criteria. This will allow AOL@School to meet the consistently growing demands of students, teachers, administrators and concerned community members from around the world.” Now isn’t that interesting - to “meet the consistently growing demands of [users] … around the world.” Isn’t that getting a little too big for one company?

AOL is providing this service free to schools, you see. They don’t provide Internet access free to home or business users, however. They are trying to fill a gap, meet demand, introduce people to its various products, and help the community - which in this case would be people around the world, or so it would seem from that last statement.

AOL, a $4.7 billion company, says the only revenue it will receive from the AOL@School service will come from revenue generated from ads targeted at teachers and administrators in separate areas inaccessible to students. AOL maintains that any revenue generated will not cover the cost of providing the service. 

Is the public to be led to believe this is purely a goodwill gesture on the part of AOL? Perhaps through the PR flack. In reality, though, it’s probably a good tax write-off, but it’s also a terrific way to push your product down someone’s throat - especially down the throat of people that would otherwise not really know much about your product. 

Wait a second here! Isn’t that what that one company, um, Macrohard, no, um, Microsoft, yeah, that’s it - Microsoft, was harassed by the U.S. Attorney General and a bunch of state ninnies? I think in the Microsoft case it was called something like monopoly. No, that’s a game. Monopolizing? I don’t know. The definition afforded the public was that the company was trying to dominate a market. Seems to me that this is exactly what AOL is doing right now - monopolizing the Internet market -- and successfully getting away with it. They say they have 22 million users, thereby staking claim to being the world’s largest Internet access provider. They own CompuServe, another pay-for-access service, which claims 2.7 million members. On top of those two interests, AOL also owns ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger, Digital City, Netscape, and AOL MovieFone. It also has an alliance (is a future buy-out in the picture yet?) with Sun Microsystems, new owners of the Star Office Suite, a weak competitor of Microsoft Office. AOL also has an alliance with the iPlanet brand. 

Is that a monopoly on a market? AOL now has its own browser manufacturer, its own software manufacturing company, and more! Maybe it’s time to look the AOL gift horse in the mouth and pass on the deal. Sounds like AOL wants a little too much of my pocket for its supposed goodwill gesture to the education community. AOL wants school administrators to order supplies and other items through its service. They will lead, if they aren’t already, students to asking their parents to get AOL service at home. On the other hand, perhaps they are relying on the notion that students will become so comfortable using their no-brainer-access-to-the-Internet service that the students will beg, plead, and do whatever it takes to get the service at home. 

No matter. The last time I used AOL was in 1998. I used it before that in 1995. Before that, I used the service in 1993, 1991, and 1990. When I first used AOL back in the Dark Age - 1990 - it was a neat service. It was cute. It still is cute. It tells you when you have mail. So does my email client. It welcomes you to the software. Big deal. It has its own “Internet Access for Dummies” - namely AOL’s service, itself. 

When I want access to the Internet, I sign onto the Internet. When I want content, which is what AOL really is - a content provider - I go to one of many sites for the exact content I want. 

Maybe the U.S. Justice Department will look into AOL’s monopolizing tactics. Maybe states will start investigating AOL’s tactics. If they don’t, my suspicions that it was AOL and Netscape that cried to the Justice Department and states that forced the trial of Microsoft will be reinforced. Oh well, no matter. I just go on using my Pathlink/Newsguy Internet access, my Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 (beta) browser (because Netscape is too s-l-o-w for any meaningful browsing), and continue on my merry way. 

Oh, yeah! My kids also have Internet access at their schools - free - from one of those free ISPs -- not AOL, thank God! The schools officially rejected the AOL idea. Smart schools.

  - by Dave Jackson (Scoop0901)