Tomorrow is the long awaited Kentucky Derby, one of thoroughbred horse racing's crown jewels, and part of the Triple Crown (Visa's, of course). This week, it was announced that jockeys could add advertising to their silks in order to make a little money.

If you're not familiar with how racing works, the jockeys literally make dollars a day at most tracks. Winners of larger stakes races taking some dough home, but not as much as you hear about the owner making. Right or wrong, that's how it works. It's pretty well known to most people who follow the sport that the jockeys aren't treated as well as they should be, but it's not something that will be fixed overnight.

Just this afternoon, it was announced that two jockeys had a liqueur sponsor in HPNOTIQ, the cool blue drink that had made its way into the top shelf in a short period of time - and continues to be very trendy. Both Alex Solis and Jose Santos will wear the "distinctive logotype on the upper pants leg of each jockeys' silks, where it will be visible as the jockeys crouch in the irons," the press release says. A second logo will be on their jersey collars.

I have a call into the representative for the company about this, as I'm curious to hear what he has to say about the reaction that HPNOTIQ is expecting from the American public with regards to advertising on uniforms, which isn't very common here except for Major League Soccer and Arena Football.

[via BusinessWire]

Charles Wright at Australian publication The Age wrote earlier this week about the music site operating out of Russia that seems to have gained a bit of popularity - allofmp3.com. The site, which of course isn't working as I write this, was apparently selling music downloads by the megabyte. Or, more specifically, US$5 for 500 megabytes worth of tunes. And the kicker - you get to download it in whatever encoding mechanism you want - MP3, Ogg Vorbis, WMA, you name it.

Today, the site says:

Dear users! Due to a technical works you may experience instability while working with our site. Encoding and downloading are now disabled. Our services will become available at 10:00, 1.May.2004. We ask to excuse us for the inconvenience.

So I guess I'll have to wait until about 2am Eastern tomorrow morning to start binging....errr....yeah.

So let me get this straight....talk about something sexual or excretory, and you get fined. But film a sex video with your significant other, have it get blown out all over the Internet, all while being the daughter of a pretty well to do family, and you become a superstar who companies are marketing with? I'm confused.

If we're so concerned about portrayal of things, as well as the intrinsic values of words and actions, then what is the difference between A) idolizing an attractive girl who has pretty much made a career out of being a high profile socialite who shows up on Page Six once a week and answers the telephone during sex - and B) using the terms "the f-word" to describe the use of, well, the f-word. And no, I'm not looking for a stretch here.

Today, I caught a press release on BusinessWire from AOL, where they were promoting the latest video by Won-G (whose name only sounds totally like Warren G's, but that's just me), where his new video for the song "Caught Up In The Rapture," is debuting on AOL before it shows up on television early next week. You can see a photo of the aforementioned Ms. Hilton, Won-G, and Gizelle (not sure who she is) at this location.

This goes back to a point I've been trying to make for weeks. If our government is so concerned about "protecting" us all from what someone considers "bad" influences out there, why does Ms. Hilton get the free pass? Companies certainly aren't afraid to utilize her as a spokesperson, actress, or name to put in a press release - because they know people are interested in her (in one way or another). So yet again, all the garbage about "what the people want" is just jive.

[snark]
Now if only someone would report back to me about the vid that Wonkette is talking about with the "Lady Justices" and the John Ashcroft doll, I would feel much better. What - it's NSFW, people - c'mon!
[/snark]

If you have something you'd like to say in support of Ted Koppel's planned reading of U.S. soldiers' names tonight on "Nightline", then drop by CableNewser's site. He's thinking of maybe taking a ride up to Sinclair Broadcasting's headquarters and will take your emails along if he goes...

Rox starts off the morning with her soundtrack for today, and thankfully - I brought my iPod to work with me. So here's mine. Perhaps this should be a Friday habit....

1. "Ice Cream" - Sarah McLachlan
2. "A Young Girls Heart" - Lindi Heart
3. "Resurrection - PPK" - George Acosta
4. "Traffic" - DJ Tiesto
5. "Rubber Band Man" - T.I.
6. "Ocean Avenue" - Yellowcard
7. "I Love You (BT Mix) - Sarah McLachlan
8. "What's Golden" - Jurassic 5
9. "L'Amour Toujours" - Gigi D'Agostino
10. "All I Know" - Rahzel

Okay, I love techno music - what are you going to do about it? BTW, even though I have probably said it eighty times, I wholeheartedly recommend Sarah McLachlan's "Remixed" album. It's insanely good.

Bill Hobbs points out that InfoWorld is running a job description for an IT reporter, and at the bottom of the request is "Prospective candidates can expect to write at least one online news story daily, and experience in blogging is a plus."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it - allllllll weekend long.

OxBlog's David Adesnik puts about 50 shots across the New York Times' bow, commenting about their article discussing a "sharp decline" in support for the war in Iraq in a recent poll. He believes that they are misstating the results, and the "sharp decline" is really the result of an artificial high in public opinion as a result of Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003.

Thanks to Pejman Yousefzadeh for the link.

Well, in case you didn't notice, the new logo is up. Thanks to Dorkafork for creating it on behalf of the Spirit of America fundraising project.

I really like it, and it was worth much more than the $10 that I donated to the cause. You've got three more hours to donate - thanks to Michele for the reminder!

Tim Karr at mediachannel.org writes today about how the Sinclair Broadcast Group, who chose to pre-empt Friday's "Nightline" could have a political agenda behind their decision.

Mediachannel reports about a statement that Sinclair sent to the media today, where they state that "ABC is disguising political statements as news content."

If that's the case, then what is the political statement of our government not reporting on the deaths of soldiers - and most of the press buying into it...of not wanting to show the pictures of American soldiers' coffins arriving at Dover AFB in Delaware - and trying to say that the families of the soldiers had requested that. I haven't heard one statement decrying what the photographers did with their photos - photos they got fired for - in fact, the father of one of the soldiers, Bill Mitchell, thanked the Seattle Times for running a photo against Pentagon orders.

This whole thing isn't about partisanship. This is about humanity. I firmly believe that this isn't a "ratings grab" for ABC. This is 11:35pm (well, Eastern time), people. If Ted Koppel called a 9pm program to do this, we'd have another discussion. He is in a unique position of being able to dedicate time on a national scale to offer something to the American soldiers who gave their lives to defend other human beings. Forget the fact that you might not agree with the war or not - remember the fact that these are people who died doing their job.

[I feel much better now. Now back to your regularly scheduled media reporting]

In response to the announcement by ABC that we discussed earlier this week about Ted Koppel reading the names of soldiers who have died in Iraq on this Friday's "Nightline" show, we now find out that some affiliates are not going to show the program. Thanks to Atrios for pointing this out. He's asking his readers to contact the Sinclair Broadcast Group and voice their displeasure on the subject.

Rhetorica's Andrew Cline has trouble with taking USA Today seriously - though he's not trying to feel that way. It's as simple as starting your journalism career (or just starting to seriously read a paper) during a time frame when, as he describes it, "Great newspapers at that time looked gray and dull, which my cohort mistook for a sign of seriousness."

The point of the discussion is that there is a notion, at least by the keystrokes of Erik Wemple at the Washington City Paper, that the Jack Kelley problems didn't grasp national attention in the way that the Jayson Blair issue did - because people don't take USA Today seriously.

Is there an age-gap issue? Or does USA Today still sit on a lower tier than other publications? I, for one, have no problem flipping through USA Today while eating breakfast at a hotel or while in an airport. It's set up in such a way where you can read it in a shorter amount of time and get a decent amount of news into your brain. It's colorful and gets your attention. They are able to offer color ads in their paper (although their scheduling is kind of quirky) more regularly than a lot of newspapers, and that's a good thing for advertisers. It's not quite to the S-A-S (Short Attention Span) level of the free dailies given out at transit stops in metro areas, but it covers a lot. Maybe it's just me, but I like to read the nationwide, state-by-state blurbs about news items going on everywhere. If there was an RSS feed I would subscribe to from a newspaper, ideally - this would be it. However - I don't consider USA Today to be the paper I'd pick up immediately if I have a choice. While there isn't an "old standby" for me, I don't grab it first all the time.

That said, I'm definitely not in a position where I don't take USA Today seriously because it's colorful and uses different fonts and story styles.

The Chicago Sun-Times Robert Feder writes today about Premiere Radio Networks' announcement that Donald Trump will be taking part in a daily dose of morning radio, entitled "Trumped!" (tm), making its way across Clear Channel stations nationwide June 15th. Mr. Trump will share some views and commentary on various topics, including a reason why he fired the latest "Apprentice"-wannabe on the upcoming second season of his hit "reality" show, "The Apprentice."

[via BusinessWire]

Primedia announced its earnings today, reporting that revenues were even with Q1/2003 at $328.5 million, but the push over the top from the sale of New York Magazine for $38.1 million helped the publisher reach net income of $5.9 million.

However, while advertising revenues increased just over $2 million for the same time period year-over-year, monies from circulation dropped by the same percentage. The claim here is that online advertising made up the difference - but shows a trend that readers are going online for their Primedia jones. Also notable - the publisher's claim that their drop in circ is actually only 5.3% in the "enthusiast" category doesn't sound as bad seems - they report that the industry average for the category is 11.3%, via the International Periodical Distributors Association.

[via BusinessWire]

The Western Publications Association held its annual Maggie Awards event last week, with CNET and its News.com division taking home a combined four awards, including Best Online Publication and Best Online Article, Interview, or News Story. You can read all about this year's winners here.

News.com took the Best Online Article category with its "Mother of invention: How the Mosaic browser triggered a digital revolution" piece by John Borland, Paul Festa, David Becker, and Mike Yamamoto. The article describes how Mosaic, the first "browser" as we know it, celebrated its 10 year anniversary last year - and how the browser has changed the way the Internet works.

Congrats to the CNET crew, and to all of this year's Maggie winners.

[via BusinessWire]

Hollywoodreporter.com announces that the U.S. House Commerce Committee has decided that EchoStar must offer both local and subscription channels on one dish, not two, as they currently are. The satellite provider has one year to set up reception of both feeds on one dish.

According to this article from Reuters - the possibility of publisher Time, Inc. bringing back Life magazine is looking good - but it would return as a newspaper supplement rather than through magazine rack distribution. ETA for the publication would be fall of 2004.

Robert Cox informs us that editor and writer Michael Kinsley is joining the LA Times as editorial and opinion editor.

I think I just broke some rule about using the term "editor" in a sentence, but that's okay.

Also, L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick posts a bit on the subject with a theory about Kinsley's "departure" from Slate and details on the future of the Times

Kevin Drum at Political Animal is venting about the proliferation of logins at newspaper sites. We have heard that this is going to be the way things work, and I still hope we can come up with a centralized registration process, at least within news site networks.

So what are the next steps out there, people? I think that while bloggers are in a unique position on this matter as they are very likely to land on many, many more newspaper sites than the average online reader, the gap between those individuals and a person who gets most of their news online but isn't a blogger is probably not that far - so it's a widespread issue. The key here to realize is that while it is annoying for you to have to come up with a login/password at every single newspaper, the folks on the other end of the content are in business to provide you the news, and the "free-ness" of the Internet has a very real cost that is just transparent to the reader (well, unless you don't have a popup blocker).

[update: 11:15pm, 4/28/04] Robert Cox at The National Debate writes about an idea of how to coordinate some sort of "easy" registration through blogs where access to newspapers would be available. While it wouldn't be the alpha and omega of simplifying access to news sites online, it could be one solution that at least helps for blog readers and publishers alike.

Edward Levenson of the Bucks County Courier Times writes about an event that took place in New Hope, Pennsylvania where media critics like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! were present to talk about the coverage of the war by the news media.

It reads like a true love fest [/sarcasm], but there were some salient points I could agree with. One came from Jeff Cohen of the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting group who said that "the television networks tried to outdo each other in flag-waving before the war in Iraq, instead of examining the rationale for the war." I can't say I disagree with that on the whole.

Well, I just donated $10 through Dorkafork to Spirit of America for a new logo for the site, so look forward to that showing up in the next week or so. Join in the fun, help a good cause, and if you are lucky, you'll find something that the great folks out there are doing on behalf of the cause to get people involved!

And while you're at it, you can read more about SOA here at A Small Victory - where Michele is using her great abilities to push a cause to meet tonight's goal for $50,000!

Reuters reports that CNBC and two leading radio networks are chasing Al Sharpton to get him on the air in multiple areas, including a syndicated talk show and as a contributor to CNBC's current offerings.

[via Drudge Report]

The New York Post picks up a Reuters article about how the father of Princess Diana's boyfriend, Mohamed al Fayed, has filed a lawsuit against the network for the images they showed last week of the car that al Fayed and the Princess were killed in.

Just read about the advent of E-Auction-Air, a new radio show coming out of 1370 AM in Austin, Texas. The radio show is hosted by Michael Donahue and Bill Crawford, both Austin residents. Mr. Donahue is a "Powerseller" on eBay, and brings his business experience together with Mr. Crawford's media skills to form a radio show from 7-8pm on Sunday nights that's all about eBay and online marketplaces.

Pretty cool idea, I must say. While I'm guessing that they have to beat down the callers who might get on the air (if they take callers!) trying to promote product number 18259010281091580 on eBay, it's definitely something that could be really informative. They reportedly have a title sponsor for the show in Overstock.com, and if their listeners are anything like the hardcore eBay bidders out there, this show could grow very quickly outside of the Austin marketplace.

[via PRWeb]

Okay, howabout they "turned the dial" instead... Jeff Jarvis points out that a radio station in San Diego went from 1st to 27th after dropping Howard Stern from the airwaves. And the statistic that blows them all away: men 18 years and older used to be a 20.6 rating on the station. Now it's a 0.8.

Jeff's summary can't be topped - "The FCC is protecting no one."

Lost Remote's Steve Safran leads us to a USA Today article detailing how local network affiliates might someday soon be able to ditch programming they feel is too risque and show their own stuff. Great. Just what everyone needs. Random programming changes based on what the local affiliate boss feels that the people in the market need to be seeing.

Bill McCabe foists upon us a meme that I just couldn't ignore. "What movies did you like when you saw them but have no particular desire to ever watch again?"

Where do I start?

I really liked Along Came A Spider but it's like the Grisham movies - you see it so you can say "the book was better". There's a ton of these.

Spawn, because I thought it would have some cool effects and whatnot, which it did - but there's no reason to see it again.

I could go on, but why? I'll let you do that.

Thanks to Romenesko for pointing out what's going to happen on this Friday night's "Nightline" on ABC. According to the folks at TV Barn, Ted Koppel will read names of the men and women who have given their lives in the war in Iraq. Koppel does note, however, that he is "not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts."

I expect pretty good ratings for this show - that is, if it gets promoted properly. I think this is a fantastic idea for a tribute and one that I will make every attempt to watch myself - or at least record it with my TiVo.

[via BlogRunner]

CNET.com's Dinesh C. Sharma reports that AOL has added new features to its "Journals" service, including HTML editing and remote posting capabilities.

Radley Balko posts about an article his dad sent him about how intelligence and law enforcement people are starting to track blogs (as Radley states, I think the same - you mean they haven't been all this time?) as sources of information. Citizens' journalism strikes again!

Thanks to Instapundit for pointing out the article that William Booth of the Washington Post wrote last weekend about something that web surfers have known for years - that marketing through this channel grants a level of "word of mouth" that is beyond anyone's expectations.

The examples that Mr. Booth covers are a website that offers human cloning - that looks and seems totally 100% real - but isn't. It's part of the marketing plan for the upcoming film "Godsend," that comes out later this week. While this isn't a new idea at all for those people who spend a lot more time on the 'Net than reading paper publications, it's gaining steam. Both Lions Gate Films and New Line Cinema are embracing the idea, and have seemingly realized that the costs are lower and the "bang for the buck" is much more effective. Why wouldn't you participate in this?

I remember back in 2001 when Steven Spielberg's "A.I." was coming out, and websites and a huge amount of "underground" marketing was going on. One website claimed to be a site built by supporters of the "anti-robot" campaign. And if you signed up to hear more about what they offered you, and entered a phone number, you received a telephone call, days later, from a robotic voice threatening your life, saying that they now knew who you were, and that they had manipulated you into believing the site was created by "people like you." I remember getting the call like a week after I visited the site, and had just sat down on the couch on a Friday night - only to be totally confused by the call. It actually took me an hour or so to search up any other people on the Internet who had received the same calls to confirm my suspicions.

So while you might see advertising in "traditional" media going forward, expect less of it overall and more of a "jump" notion to it - sending you to websites to find out more. And the messages will continue to get more and more cryptic and blend into what you might think are real commercials for real businesses. But just as the article asks - "Will this stuff keep fooling people?" I think so - technology always wins.

Steve Rubel says, "Bloggers will become even more fervent if they find a way to make money. And fervency is every PR person's dream/nightmare."

I'd like to hitch onto this topic from the lean of bloggers ending up making money because they draw an audience and their advertising/sponsorship starts to pick up. But as PR folks go, the ones that I've dealt with (and keep in mind that 50% of my "day job" is PR) seem to be about 50/50 on what they think of bloggers. One in-house PR guy told me that when he gets a writeup in a publication or an advertisement, the results are about average (anywhere from 1-7% response, depending on the medium) - while a blog link to the company's product can get them 2 or 3 times the amount they would have expected from traditional media. Now this example might be extreme, but to have someone be more than happy to help me, up and coming blogger number 1,234,567 get some scoop with no caveats, that's a big deal.

Perhaps the "paycheck" is not so far off for some. I, for one, am not here to make a ton of money off this - at least not right now. In fact, if I make $0 in the next year that's all fine and good - that wasn't the point of starting the site. I like being a part of the blogging revolution that can work as a conveyance tool for news, ideas, and other information. I like being able to "report" on a story or throw in some opinion whenever I want. I like being able to interview people and put their thoughts down for all to see. It's an internal result for me, and if it translates to traffic, then great. If it translates to some money, then bonus. You get the picture. But I think bloggers can, and will, be the "television" for the revolution. Because this time around, the revolution will be televised blogged.

Something else pops up that you weren't expecting. Kansas.com picks up Dean Takahashi's article in the Mercury News that covers a different kind of reporter. That new kind of reporter is Wagner James Au, who lives in Oakland, California, and writes a blog about "Second Life," a game where a whole community is living - and needs a newspaper.

Yes, that's right. He writes about the community in the game. He's a journalist in the real world in two ways - writing for publications like Salon and Wired - and covering the world known only to those playing the game. In fact, Mr. Au even writes about the alternative press covering the "Second Life" world.

If you're not too confused by the concepts yet, check out the blog - pretty cool stuff. Just make sure you unplug yourself before you get dizzy.

Jena McGregor at Fast Company has an article in the April issue of the magazine talking about the BWE Blog - which, according to the piece, has 95 different blogs linking to it right now. Not too shabby!

Billboards. Some people like 'em, some people don't. Some places have them, some don't. Some places have them, but only because they've been there a long time and got "grandfathered" in. One of those places is in Windham, New York.

According to this article by the AP's Michael Hill, Clear Channel Communications is the owner of a set of billboards that had, under their previous owner, been able to be near the Catskill Park area. And in 2002, the signs were changed - which may have violated their original agreement. Reportedly, the whole billboards were changed, and I don't mean just the advertisements. Clear Channel disagrees, stating that "the billboards had undergone routine maintenance and are covered under the agreement."

So which is it? Courts will decide, and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer seems like he won't rest until the ads will be gone.

Dan Nelson at OnlineAthens writes about changes taking place at cable operator Charter Communications wherein business owners (specifically bar and restaurant owners) will be charged a new monthly rate for cable service. The rates are derived from the estimated number of viewers that the cable company feels will be watching the programming in each place.

In the examples shown, Charter customers were going to have 3 or 4 times the bill they previously did, and weren't happy about it. While this might be a great thing for companies like DirecTV and DISH Network who will probably gain some customers, something positive might actually come out of this.

No, I'm not talking about great earnings announcements for Charter - I'm talking about the re-fangling of ratings systems. If customers are going to be charged like they have 100 people in their restaurant, then those same restaurants should qualify in the Nielsen ratings as such. This has been a big discussion when it comes to sports especially, because outside of the Super Bowl, many Sunday afternoon NFL games and lots of other sporting events are viewed by decently sized audiences in restaurants and bars. If Nielsen and others are looking for some sort of proxy on how to count locations like this, then they should just use the numbers that cable systems assign to bars and restaurants as a start. If you're looking to please advertisers, networks, I'd push for this if these price increases become the norm.

Rory O'Connor over at mediachannel.org wrote earlier this week about the Bush/Cheney campaign slicing their already large advertising campaign because "of a long-term strategy to advertise only when voters are paying close attention." Keep that in mind when you, the voter, are paying attention over the next few months. And while you're paying attention, also note that Democratic candidate John Kerry is "beefing up his television advertising, just as Bush is cutting his back." We'll see how this works out.

But what might be the most important statement in the article is about the "free media," (meaning the constant discussion of the election) which the folks working for President Bush feel his ads might get lost in. While the ads might be stuck in the middle of such media, (which I think you have to include blogs in, BTW) I think a lack of true "presence" by the President might not do him any good.

Cal Ulmann informs that DJ Danger Mouse, of "Grey Album" fame, has a column at the New York Times. Or at least he's doing a "Playlist" column at the moment.

Last month I had posted about Lawrence Lessig's offer to send you a free copy of his newest book, The Future of Ideas if you made a donation to Creative Commons in the amount of $5.00 or more.

I had made a donation that day, and received my autographed copy today. I'll have more details after I read it!

Thanks to Roxanne, you've got another Random 10 mp3s for your reading pleasure. Link with yours!

1. Pop - *NSYNC
2. Misdirected Hostility - 311
3. Cold Cold Night - The White Stripes
4. Never Scared - Bonecrusher
5. Take My Hand (Upbeat Depression Remix) - Dido
6. GhettoMusick - Outkast
7. Slow - Kylie Minogue
8. Hey Mama - Black Eyed Peas
9. The Remedy (I Won't Worry) - Jason Mraz
10. Not Gonna Get Us - t.A.T.u.

The Modesto Bee picks up AP reporter David Bauder's article about some new advertising measurement that Neilsen is currently putting together. Namely, counting how many times various in-stadium advertisers are on screen for home viewers, and for how long. So if you think you saw as much covered at stadiums that they could come up with, you are probably wrong - it's not just for the live folks anymore.

Just a few minutes ago, a friend of mine sent me a news alert stating that Pat Tillman, late of the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, had been killed in fighting in Afghanistan. You can read more about it here at the Houston Chronicle's site.

While this isn't a media issue at all, it's something that I really never thought I would hear and had to post here. Tillman gave up a salary of over a million dollars per year to play football for the Arizona Cardinals in order to serve the US of A, and it was widely regarded as a big story. I'm actually surprised that SportsCenter isn't talking about it that much this morning. I'm working at home for the morning, and caught a brief discussion of it, but it really is an amazing story. I'm hoping that "Outside the Lines" will talk about it tonight, and perhaps the story will be picked up by the usual talk-show circuit this afternoon and evening.

I know I speak for everyone when I say that our collective thoughts and prayers are with Tillman's family and friends. But remember, Tillman proved that he wasn't better than anyone else - anyone else who joined the Armed Forces to fight overseas - so remember those men and women just the same.

Atrios leads us to this article in LA Weekly by David Ehrenstein that expands on the "anonymous source" issue at publications. Just a week ago, I had posted on the topic after reading Bertrand Pecquerie's comments on the subject at editorsweblog.org and how it was being handled at the New York Times.

Mr. Ehrenstein seems to want to kibosh the "unnamed sources" way of life that journalists are currently working in. Or at least that's what I got from the piece. But I'm not sure if using the formula

Some Bad Journalists + Good Journalists = Not Trusted Journalists

is really the way to go.

But some might feel that the "trust" factor that goes with reading a columnist or reporter's work could overrule any necessary evil that comes with having "unnamed sources." When you have statements like those of Geneva Olverholser, who is quoted in Ehrenstein's article, that talk about being in the position where readers say "Look, you’ve got all these anonymous sources in here — why shouldn’t I assume that you made it up?", only to have the comments back from the reporters state things like "Oh you know people know they can trust me." - that's a tough place to be. Forget rock and hard place - that's much worse. You want good work and the "scoop", but you want your readers to actually read your publication, all while taking it seriously.

Jim Hu at CNET writes about the deal that AOL has struck with sister company Time Warner Cable, in which Road Runner (the product name for TWC's broadband service) users would be able to purchase the "AOL for Broadband" product, otherwise known to some as "BYOA" - or "Bring Your Own Access". And vice versa - then the companies will exchange funds for signing individuals up for each other's services.

What I find most intriguing about this is how AOL has been running an ad campaign talking about how users that have broadband are only using a "standard broadband connection" or something close to that, and they've almost been slamming that product as inferior as to what you could have if you had your "standard" connection plus AOL for Broadband. All the while this has been going on, Time Warner's own product has been, in essence, insulted by another company in TW's portfolio. Fascinating.