February 14th, 2006

The End of the Internet as we know it?

In a dire warning I’ve seen from a number of reliable sources recently, including an AlterNet post by Jeffrey Chester, the future of the Internet could be very different — and less democratic.

Big phone and cable companies want to start charging additional user fees for the supposedly-free Internet, Chester states. Under the plans these companies are considering, and for which they’re starting to lobby the government, all users — from content providers to individual users — would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail, according to Chester. They want to set prices based on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

This is potentially very serious, of course, and I hope it’s not as dire as it sounds. I’m also hoping to see a little more clarity on exactly who and how these proposals will affect the Internet’s many users, both organizations and individuals (I wish I had more time to examine the original sources and documents!).

One of the examples given by various sources on the direction the cable and phone companies are going is a quote from Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T. He apparently told Business Week in November, “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”

Having worked with telecommunications laws and regulations for several years in a previous incarnation, this statement doesn’t surprise me at all — the telecom companies have been complaining about this since the Internet’s start when “free Internet phone” services started springing up. But now, it sounds like they are talking about wanting fees for all data going over the Internet, and not just voice; and it sounds like what they want will affect more individual users and small businesses, rather than just competing companies.

However, will it just be content providers they charge and, if so, what does that really mean? Or will individual users really have to start paying for their level of use instead of just a flat fee to access unlimited use, as they do now (I can’t agree with Chester that the Internet is currently free)? Will it affect website hosts or websites more?

Lawmakers should do to both the former bells and cable companies what they did to AT&T in 1983 — namely break up these monopolies of communications into two main parts. One would remain heavily regulated as a public utility — that being the holder of core equipment and these companies’ connections to commercial and residential buildings, or “communications pipes”. (After all, you can’t have many competing companies, each with their own pipes into all buildings, it’s just not feasible). The other part would be a marketing and customer services firm that would have to compete with every other similar firm for access to the newly defined public utility.

If action is needed, I will look for the action emails I get from various nonprofits and think tanks to email and/or call the relevant lawmakers and regulators. I urge you to do the same — this strategy has worked before when Americans mounted successful challenges to the FCC’s media ownership rules in 2003, so it’s well worth the effort.

Posted by admin
Permanent Link -  No Comments »

February 7th, 2006

The Super Bowl goes green

I hope all the football fans enjoyed this year’s Super Bowl. I personally watch it every year to see the ads — and enjoy an excuse to gorge on lots of snack food. But this year’s game was particularly interesting, especially for folks involved in green business.

Despite the ads and sponsorship of the game by super-sized SUVs, three major automakers all promoted specifically green products. Both Ford and Toyota promoted their hybrid car models, while GM announced the launch of their “Live Green, Go Yellow” campaign to promote models that can run on a mix of corn-based fuel (just those three 30-second spots add about $7.5 million to the annual amount spent on green marketing). If you didn’t catch the game, or if you were up grabbing another organic beer, you’re in luck. Google Video has all of the Super Bowl ads available to watch for free, here.

To top it off, Sustainablog points out that this Super Bowl was played on “one of the greenest stadiums in the country.” Detroit’s Ford Field was built with a playing surface made of recycled tires, and uses recycled steel, concrete and glass from an old warehouse. And, according the Super Bowl’s own website, the game went “Carbon Neutral” by planting trees to offset the game’s emissions.

You can’t get a more mainstream, American media event than the Super Bowl. And seeing all of the green advertising makes me think we are very close to a tipping point.

Posted by admin
Permanent Link -  No Comments »

February 2nd, 2006

SRI Retirement Planning, CSR

If you haven’t yet gotten your copy of Business Ethics’ Winter 2005 issue, this is a good one to get (or read some of it online). It has some great information on retirement planning using socially responsible investing mutual funds and other vehicles. I even got a great contact to a local group of socially responsible entrepreneurs right here in Joisey (remember Joe Piscopo on Saturday Night Live?) from information listed on one of the SRI advisors interviewed.

There’s also a good article that sums up a piece on corporate social responsibility (CSR) written in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, as well as discussing it with the author, Deborah Doane. It gives us a sobering dose of reality that profit sometimes does conflict with principles and that CSR isn’t the ultimate or only solution to get business to where it should be — serving all of its stakeholders over the long term.

Posted by admin
Permanent Link -  No Comments »