Is AOL - a "content provider" - a good example of anti-net neutrality?

[johnaries]

I remember when my business first started doing business on the net we had all kinds of problems with AOL customers. That's when I first learned the difference between an "internet content provider" and a real ISP.

When we contacted AOL for help, they flatly told us "we don't support business applications". Click. Dial-tone.

I remember we had to develop 3-part downloads for AOL users, simply because AOL would time-out.

The AOL browser simply would not support our applications. We had to talk our customers into using IE or Netscape (the only options at the time). Lots of the time they didn't believe us. It didn't help that many times it still wouldn't work for AOL customers.

What exacerbated the problem was that when the AOL software was downloaded, it made registry changes that would keep other ISP programs from working at all. I remember many ISP's such as MindSpring (later bought out by EarthLink) proclaiming "escape AOL" software that would restore your PC's registry and undo AOL changes.

A lot of business is now conducted over the internet, which is possible only because of true ISP's and net neutrality.

Do businesses and their many highly-paid lobbyists really understand what the loss of net neutrality will do to the way they currently conduct business? How much it will cost them?

Perhaps we should explain it to them. In this case, make the "big business lobbyists" work FOR us.

[Tunkamerica]

1. exacerbated?

[johnaries]

2. Yes, thank you! Corrected. nt

[Recursion]

3. AOL doesn't really do routing anymore

The issue with net neutrality would be back in the day when people dialed up through AOL, AOL might be tempted to give Time Warner content preferential routing. Nowadays I don't know that the issue is even relevant to AOL.

The AOL browser simply would not support our applications.

Irksome, but not a net neutrality issue; nobody is suggesting we force businesses to make non-braindead client applications.