Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Netscape The Internet

Netscape-Branded ISP Launching February 2004 222

Posted by timothy from the not-a-bad-price dept.
Guppy06 writes "I'm too lazy to change my homepage in Netscape 7 to something else, and that's where I discovered an ad leading towards what appears to be a trial run of a new Netscape-branded ISP. While this isn't as momentous as, say, Netscape bundled with AOL would be, they seem to be aiming at Juno and NetZero with their price of $9.95/month ($1.00/month to participate in the trial run ending in February). This may just end up being a fizzle, or it could be part of a two-pronged attack on MSN by AOL."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netscape-Branded ISP Launching February 2004 More

Netscape-Branded ISP Launching February 2004

Comments Filter:

  • Cool (Score:4, Interesting)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:43PM (#7721580) Journal
    If this is true, I have to wonder what if anything it will do for Mozilla's exposure.

  • In Canada already? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BagOBones ( 574735 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:43PM (#7721587)
    I have been hearing ads on the radio for it here already. Sounds like one of those accelerated/compressed dial-up services.

    • Re:In Canada already? (Score:3, Informative)

      by turg ( 19864 ) *
      Yes. It's launched in Canada already details here [netscape.ca].
    • Do these accelerated services really deliver as advertized? I can seem them compressing text/html but what about images and other compressed files? There is no way they are going to get any noticable improvement in speed with 95% of the bits downloaded.

      Do they have some sort of caching service or is this just hype?

      • Do these accelerated services really deliver as advertized? I can seem them compressing text/html...

        The HTTP standard encourages compression already. You probably don't realize that all major web servers attempt to use whatever compression the browser supports, and that all major browers support compressed pages. Look at your HTTP headers for that. But that's not where these systems gain their speed. Once you're in HTTP 1.1, the only bottlenecks are the transfer of images and off-site data requiring co

    • Netscape used to have an ISP in the UK. I don't know if they still do.

      I received a couple of CDs for their service. I never used the ISP although I did install Netscape Communicator (4.6? or 4.7?) from one for a friend.

  • IE (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And they won't be bundling Netscape/Mozilla either, but will be bunding IE.
    • If that's a true statement (too lazy to read story)...

      Am I the only one who finds that to be the most retarded decision since the performa 62xx line?

    • Re:IE (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hellasboy ( 120979 ) on Monday December 15, 2003 @01:23AM (#7722429)
      did the mods read the link? No where does it say that the service will come bundled with IE. The AC doesn't link to any statements backing up what he had said... and somehow it's informative.

      from the TOS:
      "You must have a personal computer with a modem connected to a communications source (telephone, wireless or broadband), a Windows-based operating system with an Internet browser, such as Netscape Version 6.0 or higher or Microsoft Internet Explorer Version 5.5 or higher, and an Internet-based e-mail software in order to access electronic communications"

      • Thanks for the info. Here are a couple of things that came to my mind while reading that TOS part.

        ...a Windows-based operating system...

        I would only be willing to accept this if they were an advertisement supported ISP. When I am paying for it, I want choice of operating system.

        ...an Internet-based e-mail software in order to access electronic communication...

        I am not sure what they mean by 'Internet-based e-mail software' but if it means a web-based interface only, it is not acceptable for a paid servi

    • Re:IE (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      This makes no sense to me, especially where they could simply ship it with Firebird and make the web experience seem faster. Combine that with the dialup compression.. you could seriously convence older dialup users that it's actually a whole different service.
      • My understanding was that they wanted to fit the client on to a floppy (remember the good old days of asking AOL if you could try their service, just so you could get some free floppies...). I don't know if they would be able to fit a dialer, configs and Firebird on a single floppy.

  • Better than AOL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ravensky ( 732779 )
    I know that Netscape is merged with AOL (AOL bought it actually *rolls eyes*). I think that if this ISP was made, it would be good. But ONLY if it was cable or DSL. Dial-Up is too slow, and has been around for too long. And hopefully it wouldnt be as crappy as the AOL browser is.
  • because everyone knows the netscRape brand and would provide a great service to have a linux installer! had a friend who ditched linux cuz he didn't have a friendly isp. would this be step one in mass acceptance? is aol really that smart anymore? ?? ? i thought they would buy red hat back when the rumor was on slashdot. ho hum. we'll see :)

  • Netscape offering kind-of-broadband in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

    by puppetman ( 131489 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:45PM (#7721601) Homepage
    I've been hearing commercials for Netscape as a broad-band-like ISP in Canada [netscape.ca] on the radio lately.

    They are going to have a tough go of it, competing against Telus.

    They claim,

    "Netscape Online Accelerator uses advanced web acceleration technology to increase the speed of dial up service, using your existing phone jack and modem without the expense of high speed services such as DSL or a cable modem. No additional equipment is required nor is there any waiting for installation"

    Sounds like some sort of caching strategy to deliver content faster.

    Overall, sounds like a step backwards to me. I'll stick with my Shaw 300KB/second cable-Internet for $30 Canadian a month.

  • Ironically (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:45PM (#7721606)
    Ironically, the browser software included in the sign-up package is a Netscape-branded version of Internet Explorer.

    Pretty sad when your browser sucks so much you don't trust yourself enough to use it.
    • And they ask users to pay them to beta-test their software!

      Sign up to Beta test the new Netscape Service for $1.00 per month through February 2004.*
      We need your help Beta testing the following features ...
      AFTER MARCH 1, 2004, MONTHLY CHARGE WILL BE $9.95.

      Pay to beta-test dial-up service???

  • This sums it up (Score:5, Funny)

    by fo0bar ( 261207 ) * on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:45PM (#7721609)
    "Brand Necrophilia" [livejournal.com]

  • I don't want to be rude.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpaceRook ( 630389 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:45PM (#7721610)
    ...but is there anyone who associates Netscape with anything other than ugly bloatware? If you want to sell a product, is plastering the Netscape logo all over it the best way to go? When someone says "Netscape", images of "RealPlayer" and a bunch of crappy "Subscribe to AOL Now!" icons come to mind.
  • Is there something I missed (which is quite likely)? Doesn't AOL sell 'net access already? Why do they want to include NetZero and Juno in this? Do I smell buyout?

  • Brilliant move (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:46PM (#7721615)
    By doing this, AOL not only gets to split their already-fleeing-like-rats-from-a-drowning-ship userbase, but they also get to cash in on the incredibly lucrative and growing dial-up internet market. And of course, the crowning touch, capitalizing on the Netscape namebrand, which everyone associates with fast, quality service. Good move, AOL!

  • Excellent....? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daneurysm ( 732825 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:46PM (#7721616)
    While this could be part of a 'two pronged attack' on MSN, I highly doubt that. It will most certainly be a fizzle if they are merely offering basic dialup service. Unless they have a standard 'dialup accelerator' or some other value added feature that sets them apart from the rest of the dialup services, there's not much more room in this market IMHO. Unless of course they start this as their 'basic' level of service and offer a very cheap broadband solution along side (eventually). I fail to see that happening so long as DSL lines have to be bought from SBC and cable lines bought from Comcast. ~Dan

  • Chillin in the hizizzle (Score:5, Funny)

    by EmCeeHawking ( 720424 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:47PM (#7721621)
    This may just end up being a fizzle

    Fo shizzle, my nizzle.

  • Bah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Knights who say 'INT ( 708612 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:49PM (#7721628) Journal
    It just cheapens the Netscape name, one for which many of us still have fond memories. I would guess some of the key original Netscape programmers are pretty sad too.

    I already posted a comment about this once, but I'll never forget how sad jwz's resignation letters were.

    This one [jwz.org] predates the recently slashdotted article [slashdot.org] about myths in open source by many years, and probably was the first one to call attention to the fact that (his own words) "you cannot just take a project, sprinkle it with the magic pixie dust of 'open source' and make it magically work".

    And this one [jwz.org] made me so sad when it came out I threw away all plans of making a career in computer engineering. Again his own words, "sometimes the only way to win is to not play".

    Yes, he's kinda dramatic in a mexican soap opera way, but then I was 17, and was deeply struck.

  • Netscape Brand, already in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stewart.hector ( 87816 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:49PM (#7721629) Homepage
    I don't understand this.

    The Netscape ISP brand has already been tried, and AOL dumped it. The ISP was low cost.

    This was done in the UK a few years ago, it lasted for not long. I don't know whether the Netscape ISP was also introduced to other countries, though.

  • first impressions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:49PM (#7721630) Homepage
    A couple things to keep in mind. AOL/Time Warner is a mess, and internet access is rapidly becoming commodified. The glory days of AOL will never be back, and we're going to see an era of throat-cutting competitive tactics amongst large ISP's that are similar to what the telcos are now going through.

    Given the outright incompetence in the overall strategic vision at AOL/TW, there's no telling if this new plan is an act of foresight or of desperation.

    Still, I have to say that it makes sense to leverage both the Netscape and AOL brands. They're obviously positioning Netscape as the low-cost bare-bones option for dialup ISP service, and I bet that subscribers will be incessantly prompted to upgrade to the features found on AOL.

  • According to their business plan.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:49PM (#7721631)
    ... they're going to offer sub-standard service, and then blame Microsoft for having an MSN shortcut on their desktop when they tank.

  • No MAC SUPPORT (Score:3, Informative)

    by pastpolls ( 585509 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:52PM (#7721643)
    This is what I get on my mac... Macintosh Users The Macintosh operating system is not supported at this time. Netscape currently supports Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Please check back in the future for a Macintosh version of Netscape!

    • Re:No MAC SUPPORT (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoraLives ( 622001 )
      My guess is that people who are already smart enough to own a mac will also be smart enough to stay the hell away from godawful crap like this.

      Ergo: The mac is not supported.

  • Macintosh not supported at this time? (Score:5, Informative)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:53PM (#7721651) Journal
    Well, someone please send AOL a clue. When I see messages like, "The Macintosh operating system is not supported at this time," I feel like walking over to the code-monkey and smacking him upside the head. Why?

    1) Hey, I might have Windows computer, but I'm at a Mac now and I want more info.

    2) It's a friggin' ISP! Cripes, just tell me the dial-in number to use and I'll be OK.

    3) The closing statement of "Please check back in the future for a Macintosh version of Netscape!" is MS-worthy in its FUD. Netscape certainly is available for Macs. Just b/c your proposed ISP doesn't "support" them, no reason to lead people to believe that Netscape is a Windows-only product.

    • Re:Macintosh not supported at this time? (Score:5, Informative)

      by NetJunkie ( 56134 ) <jason DOT nash AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:06PM (#7721723)
      Their compression agent doesn't support Mac. Dial-up ISPs now compress stuff before sending it to help speed things up.

    • More AOL goodness (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fname ( 199759 )
      Oh, I am really happy that I let AOL, " We may optimize your computer settings to enhance your Netscape experience. If you have any questions regarding your Netscape account, please call 1-866-541-8233." Wow. Happy to hear that AOL won't make any changes to my computer that will be to my detriment. Any guesses on what "enhancements" AOL will add? I'll start the guessing with some easy ones:

      1) Change default email program.
      2) Change default email account
      3) Change default browser.
      4) Change browser home page (
    • Much to my amazement, after moz on osx fscked up, as mentioned above, thought i'd see how it coped....amazed that they're suporting lynx on *bsd but not moz on mac os :)
      gw@archer: -->uname -a
      FreeBSD archer.xxxx776.org 4.8-RELEASE-p4 FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE-p4 #2:

      gw@archer: --> lynx http://isp.netscape.com/software/index.jsp

      ++++
      Netscape Netscape Preview
      Netscape [tan_line.gif]
      Welcome to the Beta preview of the Netscape Internet Service.

      Sign up to Beta test the new Netscape Service for $1.00 p

  • This would be great (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ignis Flatus ( 689403 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:55PM (#7721663)
    Especially if they could figure out some way to download images in the background, and maybe throw in some chat rooms. Linux types would also appreciate a command line interface, so they could just jump directly to any part of the service by typing in a keyword. Yeah, that'd be cool.

  • They Needed a Name (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thales ( 32660 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @10:58PM (#7721676) Homepage Journal
    AOL is getting hit from the top and the bottom. High Speed Access is erroding their customer base from the top, and Low Cost Dialups are attracting customers from the bottom. Having their own low cost Dial Up will allow them to at least get some money from people who are leaving them for a cheaper alternitive. Using the AOL brand name for the cheaper service would cause confusion (Why am I being billed 23.95? I saw an ad for 9.95!) so they needed a different name for it. They already own the rights to a well known name associated with the Internet, Netscape, so it was a natural choice.

  • A branding disaster (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:02PM (#7721692) Homepage
    I'm not marketing guy, but the more I think about this new plan, the less sense it makes to me. I have to ask, what on earth is the Netscape brand supposed to mean?

    To me, the Netscape brand means browsers. After IE, it's probably the best known brand of browsers on the market. I've always thought the point of branding was to create a rock solid identity for a specific product, and then extend that product to new areas. For instance, Taco Bell creates a brand for Taco Bell tacos, and through incessant marketing convinces people that the slop actually tastes good. Then, once that brand is strong, they move on to marketing Taco Bell brand taco shells, that you can buy in any grocery store. You can see how there's a connection here, and how somebody who likes TB Tacos would be more likely to buy TB taco shells in the supermarket.

    But with this Netscape thing, I don't get it. If Netscape isn't a brand name for a browser, what is it a brand name for? And what does a browser have to do with purchasing internet access?

    The funny thing here, is that AOL/Time Warner already owns the top brand in ISP's: AOL. So why not come out with a $9.95 "AOL-Light", which you then cajole customers into upgrading to full-fledged AOL? Using Netscape as the brand for an entry-level ISP makes no sense whatever, whereas extending the AOL name makes perfect sense.

    • If Netscape isn't a brand name for a browser, what is it a brand name for?

      It may get even more perverse than that. I'd expect some leverage from Microsoft (if it hasn't happened already ) for the bundling of the IE browser into Netscape's pseudo-broadband dialup.

      Then you have a complete branding nightmare: your brand doesn't even include your brand. Netscape Internet - with Internet Explorer browser included. Yikes! (I would have paid good money to be a fly on a wall at this strategy meeting - and also
    • And what does a browser have to do with purchasing internet access?

      Well, I heard that I need to buy Netscape if I want to install the internet on my IBM-compatible Personal Computer...

      Using Netscape as the brand for an entry-level ISP makes no sense whatever, whereas extending the AOL name makes perfect sense.

      America On Line?

      I don't want to go onl-line, I want the internet!

      Somewhere out there, somebody is thinking like that...

    • The funny thing here, is that AOL/Time Warner already owns the top brand in ISP's: AOL. So why not come out with a $9.95 "AOL-Light", which you then cajole customers into upgrading to full-fledged AOL? Using Netscape as the brand for an entry-level ISP makes no sense whatever, whereas extending the AOL name makes perfect sense.

      Because AOL's brand name has already been tarnished as a result of the brain dead advertising decisions made back in the 2000 days. Extending the AOL brand name means people with a

    • The kind of person who is an AOL customer doesn't know what the Netscape brand really used to stand for, becuase they don't know what a browser is. So AOL's marketing department has seen fit to apply Netscape as an all-purpose brand for whatever their scheme is today. It really has nothing to do with anything in particular anymore, especially the company Netscape used to be. If you need proof, just consider that the browser for the new Netscape ISP is a Netscape-branded Internet Explorer.

      As more failed

  • This is about trying to stay on top (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pbug ( 728232 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:03PM (#7721700) Homepage
    AOL is losing money to companies that are offering a cheaper service so now when a customer calls and wants to cancel they can offer them a cheaper service and still keep their customer.

    • Stayin' alive (Score:4, Interesting)

      by scoove ( 71173 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:45PM (#7721918)
      AOL is losing money to companies that are offering a cheaper service so now when a customer calls and wants to cancel they can offer them a cheaper service and still keep their customer

      This is less than true; granted, AOL's suffered some encroachment on the bottom, but it's not nearly as significant as the destruction from above from broadband availability. Over 80% of the rural broadband customers the company I work for signs up comes from AOL - not from low-cost dialup. Those $5 to $10/mo. Internet users stay with their low-use plans. It's the $22 for AOL + second phone line to use all the included hours (at another $20 with taxes) = $42/month for crummy old AOL that gives consumers a very easy decision going broadband.

      Consider AOL's focus the past 10+ years: "unlimited hours." They were never the low price; consumers that wanted a $10 or less service found plenty of local ISP options and in the past 5 years, Netzero, ad-supported dialup and various sub-$10 approaches flooded the market.

      Reading AOL's 10Ks [sec.gov], they've been pretty clear that they don't see themselves in this market. Instead, they proclaim more of a value pricing model - lots of hours at a good price. The only problem is that their unlimited buffet quickly became a fare that was unpaletable to an increasing amount of consumers, especially those who spend more time online and were AOL's primary market. Somebody opened up a buffet next door, and for another $10-$20/month (about 50% to 100% the price of that second phone line, so in many cases, the consumer ends up saving money by switching), it's several dozen times the quality.

      So I wouldn't expect they perceive this move as a defensive one. Perhaps, in fact, its a low risk (no AOL brand name at stake) move to test the waters on the sub-$10 market where they never have been strong. I'll contradict a previous post - this actually might make sense. After all, AOL's a cash cow and they're going to have to do something with all the dialup foundation to keep it competitive as the dialup market loses most of its upper 80% of consumer. They're going to be left with 100% price-based market.

      Move the AOL operations over to the Netscape brand (and rebrand as AOL) and you've got another lease on life. This sounds to me as if non-AOL execs made this call. This is a move 1 year out from cutting over AOL to a low-cost, low-price operation and Netscape (in a rather perverse way) might actually end up being the beginning of the end of AOL.

      Interesting move, Time Warner...

      *scoove*

  • AOL's last gasp (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:03PM (#7721704)
    THis is merely a way for AOL to try to keep a few of the customers that it has been losing recently. Standard AOL is too expensive and/or too slow. People have been jumping ship for faster or cheaper service.

    So, if they can offer a cut down service (that may appear somewhat faster) they can keep a few of those jumpers, and stave off the financial debacle for a while.

  • true story (Score:2, Funny)

    by rifftide ( 679288 )
    During the latter part of Albert Einstein's tenure at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, management decided to ramp up its hiring efforts. One day a slew of new hires were brought in to be introduced to the great man. "Dr. Einstein, this is an amazing honor", said the first newbie. "I'm thrilled at the opportunity to work with you because, while I'm not half as brilliant as you are, I do happen to have an IQ of 180". "Outstanding", replied Einstein. "I'm sure we can have many profitable disc

  • probably will use the aol backbone (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Indy1 ( 99447 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:06PM (#7721722)
    and therefore will be sucktastically slow. Aol has a shoddy slow network that has been overloaded ever since they went to all you can eat dialup. If your gonna use cheap dialup, go for flex.com (note i am not a customer, but thats who i recommend when people need a decent dialup).

  • Dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) * <waldo AT jaquith DOT org> on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:09PM (#7721732) Homepage Journal
    We discussed this in October ("AOL to Launch Discount 'Netscape' Internet Service" [slashdot.org], to the tune of 358 comments.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  • Impact slight to nil (Score:2, Interesting)

    by inteller ( 599544 )
    No this isn't a flame its the truth. This is being marketed to people who are just looking for the cheapest price and who don't give a damn about the browser. No revolutions here. THe people won't even notice cause it'll be so customized you couldn't tell it form real stock netscape. Just a bunch of cheapskates using a dying form of internet access. If anything I'd be insulted if my favorite browser was getting marketed to the bottom barrel crowd.

  • End of the AOL Brand? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:20PM (#7721785)
    Fact: Afer the disastrous merger, the TW people are re-gaining control of AOL/TW.

    Fact: The AOL name is mud in the business world and approaching mud (slurry?) in the consumer world.

    Fact: AOL has few friends among those regaining control of AOL/TW.

    Predictions:

    1. AOL/TW will drop the AOL part and revert to Time-Warner.

    2. TW will start migrating AOL's content (such as it is) to TW branded properties.

    3. AOL will start migrating its dial up subscribers to the Netscape branded service. "Just a name change."

    4. Finally, AOL will cease to function as an ISP, and will channel everything through AOL.com, which will also eventually just whither away.

    Good riddance.

    • Time-Warner (Score:3, Informative)

      by ZxCv ( 6138 ) *
      1. AOL/TW will drop the AOL part and revert to Time-Warner.

      Didn't they already do this? I could be mistaken, of course, but when you go to www.aoltimewarner.com [aoltimewarner.com], it redirects you to www.timewarner.com [timewarner.com], where I can't find a single thing that has the AOL and Time-Warner names together.
    • 3. AOL will start migrating its dial up subscribers to the Netscape branded service. "Just a name change."

      This step appears to already be in the works (ref my previous post; if that doesn't scream TW execs are running things, nothing does). Launch a nonthreatening pilot product that just happens to be the magic solution a year from now when everyone's hot about increasing losses within AOL ops (and tell me, what's going to prevent AOL from sliding further? The king of CD cramming will have a hard time com
    • 1. AOL/TW will drop the AOL part and revert to Time-Warner.

      Already done. AOL Time Warner [aoltimewarner.com] does not exist anymore.

  • too lazy to type a url into a preference box (Score:4, Funny)

    by Maskirovka ( 255712 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:20PM (#7721786)
    "I'm too lazy to change my homepage in Netscape 7 to something else

    That's not something one would normally brag about in this forum.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 14, 2003 @11:26PM (#7721823)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • my only question is why anyone would still be using netscape when mozilla seems to be far superior. or is there something i dont know?

      Never underestimate the power of brand-name recognition.
    • erm lets see.... In my household, IE is BANNED on all computers connecting to my precious home network. Parents are scared of Mozilla, plus i have had it UP TO MY EYEBALLS tryign to support mozilla for them. (They need their Media Player ActiveX control)... Compromise, install Netscape 7.1, enable pop-up blocking, clear "allow list" (Net7.1 comes with a HUGE list of AOL sites in the allow list) What do we have, Mozill 1.4 dressed in Netscape skin. and guess what? My parents feel comfortable, and they LO
    • netscape (7 and 7.1) is really handy as a transition from netscape 4.7 or earlier to mozilla, as it converts 4.7 user profiles, bookmarks, etc. automagically.
  • Already some discussion of this here. [slashdot.org]
  • This may call itself Netscape, but it's still run by AOL, a company that is pretty well known for adding things to bills without authorization, charging even after people have canceled their subscriptions, and other nasty little business pratices. If the offer were from elsewhere I have some family members I would sign up for it today. With AOL, no thanks, it's not worth the risk.
  • Au revoir [mozilla.org] Netscape, those Time Warner fucks have no idea of what to do with you.

    At this point I don't even want to see mozilla.org pick up the branding scraps from Netscape. AOLTW saw to it that those were beaten to a pulp.

    Readers: our mission is clear. Help end users forget the nightmare that is now AOLTW/Netscape and get them over to Mozilla, pronto. All Time Warner can see is $$$, not that ditching Netscape browser development and rolling over for Microsoft puts them in vendor lockin in the long r

  • Think about the name confusion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wyzard ( 110714 ) on Monday December 15, 2003 @12:00AM (#7722004) Homepage

    Nobody seems to have pointed this out yet, so I will.

    Imagine for a moment that you're a phone-support tech working at, say, Dell or some other consumer PC manufacturer. You get a call from a customer who says they can't "get on the Internet".

    You ask this customer, "What Internet service are you using?" and the customer responds "Netscape".

    Until now, anyone hearing such a response could immediately recognize that the user was talking about their browser, not their ISP (which is what the question referred to). Now, that conclusion can't be made.

    With the introduction of this service, someone who is "using Netscape" is either:

    • Using the Netscape browser with some unspecified ISP, or
    • Using the the Internet Explorer browser with the Netscape ISP

    Needless to say, this makes it difficult to ascertain which is the case when talking to a user who doesn't know the difference.

    • This move was specifically designed to piss off nerds everywhere.

      Can you picture the discussion the next time your parents, aunts, clueless co-workers can't get on the interweb?

      AOL is the primary reason most people don't understand the difference between an ISP and a browser. A few weeks ago, my father actually asked me how he would get on the internet if he switched from AOL to cable or DSL.

  • Tech support (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@@@phroggy...com> on Monday December 15, 2003 @12:06AM (#7722028) Homepage
    I've talked to people before who thought Netscape was their ISP. Not quite as common as thinking Yahoo is their web browser, but not terribly unusual. Now imagine how annoying it will be for tech support reps when they talk to a customer who's using Internet Explorer with Netscape's ISP and insists their browser is Netscape...
  • ... who thinks their ISP really *is* netscape!
    (and their browser is Yahoo)

  • It's True and False all rolled in to one. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bdoga ( 261184 ) on Monday December 15, 2003 @12:10AM (#7722047) Homepage
    I talked with those representing the Mozilla project at Comdex/LasVegas, They said that they were going to roll out the netscape branded ISP service. That is the true part. The fase part is that Mozilla/Netscape (Which Trademark AOL owns) Will only be involved as the name of the service, the Browser of choice will be Internet Explorer. Name Branded Marketing Strikes Again.
  • From section A:
    "Netscape may provide to you automatic Software and technology upgrades as the Preview Service is improved, and you agree to accept and to take no action to interfere with such automatic upgrades and related services."

    Great. Yet another outfit that wants write access to my drive. If Counter-Strike wasn't enough to tempt me to allow a program to do what it wants on my system (Steam), there's not a snowflake's chance in hell that anything else will.

    (An EULA is different from a service agreeme
  • I thought that Netscape had an ISP around 2001 or so, but nobody signed up.
  • I am shocked to shit every time I see Netscape's name on something modern. They haven't had control of much at all in terms of market share since IE version suck (3.0?) in the NT 4.0 days. Then with AOL's drama back and forth with them over the years, why is AOL bankrolling the brand?

    I'd call Netscape a failed brand name and I can't make sense of why money is poured into it to keep it alive. Does anyone have a page comparing browser use?

  • UK Mishaps (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gotw ( 239699 )
    They set up a "netscape online" ISP in the UK, which has since been axed. It was back in the day when everyone and his aunt had started an 0845 "lo-call" isp, and then ran it off the profits from the telephone calls. The reason this one didn't make any money might have been something to do with the fact that you could use your netscape online username and password with AOLs freephone dialup. Although I don't know how many people noticed that.
    I wonder if they'll manage to do the same thing again?
  • I'm curious as to how the American ISP market works. See, here in Scandinavia, dial up internet accounts have been free for years now.

    That does however not include line usage, so you're still stuck with your telco's minute charge. In fact, there are (as far as I know) nobody selling "free" online hours with the service.

    In central Europe, however, bundling a number of hours, or even an infinite number of hours, together with the service seems to be commonplace.

    This is not a big issue here anymore, as DSL
    • In the US local calls are generally "free" and "unlimited" with your normal phone bill. A normal residential account is 400 local calls a month with no time limits...plus long distance. So the "goal" with US dial-up ISPs are to be as "local" as possible to avoid extra charges...that allows mom-n-pop ISPs to pop up all over and be somewhat profitable. Also, Usually the Collages and Universities are the "internet backbone" and offer their bandwith to all equally for flat rates. in addition, the phone com
  • I recall a service called "NetCenter" for commercial ISP hosting.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben

Close