Category: Uncategorized

Business for Social Responsibility: At Annual Conference, Guest Speakers Feature Anti-Internet Freedom and Obesity Boosting CEOs.

The Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) group has an ad touting its annual conference in today’s New York Times business section [the Times Co. is a BSR “media sponsor”]. Featured as keynote speakers are Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons and Coca Cola’s chair and CEO Neville Isdell. The conference is supposed to help executives “learn about the best practices in corporate social responsibility (CSR) today — and what lies ahead.” The program has panels with titles as “Being Green is Glorious,” “Replicating Better Factories Cambodia,” and “Strategic Decision-Making on Climate Change: Exploring Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches.” H-P, Altria (Philip Morris), GE, McDonalds and many other heavyweights are sponsoring the conference. NGO’s also appear to play a role at BSR, as evidenced by the session entitled “Strategies for Improving Business Impact on Poverty: Unilever and Oxfam Look Ahead.”

But the idea of featuring keynotes from Parsons and Isdell, who are positioned as some kind of global corporate role model, is absurd. Parsons leads a company fighting against Internet Freedom in the U.S. Time Warner, as we know, is opposed to broadband network neutrality. Instead of being honored, Dick Parsons should be scolded. Parsons was also the key executive helping his former boss Gerry Levin and eventual partner Steve Case fool shareholders and investors (including pension funds) when they engineered the AOL-Time Warner deal [Washington Post may require registration]. Parsons was a key leader of the Time Warner effort to further media consolidation in the cable TV business—despite its consequences to freedom of expression and ownership diversity.

Now, Time Warner is working with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other allies to thwart the passage of network neutrality safeguards. Instead of being honored, Parsons should be roundly criticized for his lack of real corporate social responsibility.

As for Mr. Isdell. Well, let’s just say that Coca-Cola is actively promoting a digital media-saturated global youth obesity epidemic. Take a look here.

Among the funders of BSR include the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the (get ready for this!) U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I think we should ask for a taxpayer refund and also urge those charitable foundations to press for some serious change at BSR. [The confence has one breakout session titled “The Internet, Freedom of Expression and Privacy.” It should be made a plenary event with both Parsons and Isdell required to listen to real leaders fighting for social justice, including an open and democratic Internet].

Heart [less] Institute: Part of the Telecom/Cable Lobby Support System

The Heartland Institute is one of the never-ending series of groups that attempt to place the interests of big phone and cable monopolies before those of the average American. Ideology shapes the findings of this group. If it had a MySpace page, its “friends” would include the Progress and Freedom Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Cato, and the Pacific Research Foundation. They are a well-connected and networked web of organizations used to advance the narrow, monopoly-building agendas of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and a few others.

Now with a yearly budget in the millions, the Heartland Institute is keeping up a steady attack on the public interest campaign to restore online freedom [net neutrality] and broadband competition for the U.S. Internet. Take its most recent IT&T newsletter [no. Not named after the infamous super-conglomerate and scandalous company. It stands for Info Tech & Telecom News. But we think Heartland’s Freud must have slipped a lot when it chose that acronym]. In the September 2006 issue of IT&T, managing editor Steven Titch defends the upcoming mega-merger between AT&T (formerly SBC) and BellSouth. “This merger should be allowed to proceed,” he writes, because AT&T will provide “new investment and a growth strategy.” He attempts to make the case that poor BellSouth needs a government-approved mega-buyout to save its declining revenues. But Heartland’s analysis is distorted, designed to help out AT&T. So ignored, for example, is what Bell South told the SEC—and investors– in its 2005 10K report (before the pending merger helped shaped what it now claims). “We are a Fortune 100 company with annual revenues of over $20 billion. Our core business is wireline communications and our largest customer segment is the retail consumer. We have interests in wireless communications through our ownership of approximately 40% of Cingular Wireless (Cingular), the nation’s largest wireless company based on number of customers. We also operate one of the largest directory advertising businesses in the United States. We have assets of approximately $60 billion and employ almost 63,000 individuals…During 2004, we realigned our assets towards domestic wireless and increased investment in broadband to better position the company for the future. Specifically, our wireless joint venture, Cingular Wireless, purchased AT&T Wireless in October 2004, causing Cingular to become the largest wireless company in the United States and increasing the percentage of our revenue from wireless operations on a pro forma basis to approximately 40%. To further this realignment in strategy, we sold our Latin American operations to Telefónica Móviles in transactions that closed in late 2004 and early 2005…. As use of the Internet grows and as corporate data applications increase in sophistication and scope, the market for broadband and data services is expanding and evolving. BellSouth will continue to expand its capabilities in order to maintain a leadership position in the broadband and data communications market. Investment in service infrastructure is strategically managed to enable delivery of services offering increasing capacity and functionality. In parallel, we continue to use new advances in digital technology to bolster the broadband capabilities of our entire network. The emergence of high-performance broadband and digital infrastructure offers the ability to use these networks for real-time communications including voice and video using various technologies such as softswitches (software-based switching platforms) and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP).”

Doesn’t sound like a corporate version of the Titanic to me.

What Heartland and its big telecom-supported “think tank” minions want is a system where the public has no rights. An AT&T—in Heartland’s view—should be able to do what it wishes, regardless of the costs to our democratic society. Journalists and consumers beware. Heartland has constructed an artificial view of the world based on fantasy spun from corporate lobbyist’ playbooks.

PBS Commercialization: The Comcast, Kidvid and Sprout connection

Next month, PBS’s Sprout is celebrating its one-year launch with a self-proclaimed birthday bash. Sprout is a channel aimed at pre-schoolers. It has advertising and is a commercial venture. PBS was lured into the deal in part by Comcast, which was seeking cheap-to-buy and already in the can “family-friendly” content for its cable TV systems (including its video on demand service). By agreeing to this deal, PBS ultimately embraced a more commercialized, monopoly-media dependent model for its future. Instead of protecting children from an advertising culture, PBS helped to enhance it. (PBS wasn’t alone in wanting such a deal. Some of its children’s TV producers, who actually control the rights to programming, wanted an outlet beyond the limits of PBS broadcasting. )

The September Sprout “anniversary” (as they are touting it) should be accompanied by some serious reflection at PBS headquarters, its stations, and producers like Sesame Workshop. They are helping lead PBS further down the wrong path during this critical time of transition in the digital video era.

PBS to Run Commercials Online, including at PBS Kids site. Doesn’t it know there soon won’t be a real difference between the Web and TV?

PBS intends to run online advertising this fall at its PBS.org website. The so-called non-commercial network says it seeks to benefit from the “explosive growth and rising demand” of interactive advertising. In an example of how out of touch PBS executives are with its non-commercial mandate, a PBS VP explained that the move is a response to the demand of the market. He said that such ads would generate “positive financial results” for the network, helping it fulfill its “mission-based activities.” They claim there will be “guidelines” helping determine what ads can run. But an ad’s an ad. Incredibly, PBS will also seeks advertising for its kids website homepages—PBSkids.org and PBSkids Go!

PBS should not be seeking commercial opportunities in the broadband market. Instead, it should be pioneering new forms of non-commercial content readily available throughout our ubiquitous digital system. PBS must recognize by now that online and TV (as well as mobile) are merging. The distinction about whether content is delivered via any specific platform no longer matters. Whether received via TV, cellphone, or PC, public broadcasting content should be fully non-commercial. PBS, and its stations, (and NPR) should not attempt to replicate what commercial media companies are doing online and with mobile networks. It will be a U.S. media universe saturated with advertising. If PBS is to remain distinctive at all—it has to strictly adhere to non-commercial formats in all forms of distribution. Certainly, new PBS president Paula Kerger can do better than this. PBS officials think they have a loophole because they aren’t prohibited from running ads online (they are restricted in terms of commercials and their TV licenses). Congress must step in to bar PBS from running any ads—in any medium.

[source: “PBS to resume Online Ads to Exploit Market Demand.” Dinesh Kumar. Communications Daily. Aug. 24, 2006. Subscription only].

PS: In response to those who say that PBS needs money, so hence it must run online ads. In my view, only by creating meaningful interactive non-commercial formats can PBS hope to raise money from viewers/users. Its future is with the audience increasingly using social media web sites. It has to provide those users with distinctive content. A fully non-commercial service is likely to be appreciated with viewer support. Foundations might like it too.

PPS: Read the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childrhood’s alert on PBS ads here.

And Commercial Alert’s here.

PPPS!: See a good overview article on PBS’s deal with Google’s Adsense service. The piece includes an interview with PBS’s VP for Interactive and Education. It’s at paidcontent.org and called “PBS.org Starts Accepting Contextual Ads From Google; More Coming.” See another piece about the PBS station in Cincinnati that has “re-launched its web presence as an ad-supported on-demand video site.”

Hey, Big Spender: Telco’s and Cable Buy Favor on the Hill

The National Journal’s excellent David Hatch has kept his journalistic eye on all the telecom/cable lobbying money flowing in to Congress. Millions are being spent to keep lawmakers favorably disposed against net neutrality and other broadband safeguards. The majority of AT&T’s giving (67%) has gone to the GOP. Other big spenders include Comcast, BellSouth, Verizon and Time Warner (the latter should spend less on lobbying and more on privacy. But, of course, they really don’t want to).

Read David’s article. See how Speaker Hastert, House Commerce chair Joe Barton and many others have done well for themselves. And then follow the money when the voting on network neutrality comes this fall.

abendlich rauscht mp3 wald der schonwald mp3 abendlich rauscht schon derrauscht wald mp3 schon abendlich dercupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3cupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3fair advance wav mp3 australia Map

Telco CEOs to the Internet: We Own You and You Will Never Be Free

Top execs from Verizon, Qwest, and the USTA lobbying machine attacked the concept of network neutrality yesterday. They spoke at the annual lobbyist love-fest run by the Progress and Freedom Foundation. The exec remarks make clear that the leadership of the U.S. telephone industry is hazardous to the Internet’s health. For example, Verizon’s Tom Tauke dismissed concerns about what will happen to our democratic rights now that neutrality is lost. For the former Congressman turned top lobbyist, there are only consumer interests. “…I believe,” he said, “there is now an emerging consensus” that’s it’s all about consumers, reported Communications Daily [Aug. 23, 2006. Subscription only]. He said that calls for “non-discrimination” were coming from advocates of “old rules” (he meant the policies that made the Internet an open forum]. Meanwhile, the chief of the United States Telecom Association–Walter McCormick–said that his members “would oppose any bill with strong net neutrality language.” Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert chimed in that there was “no need for Congress to act where there’s no problem…”

Bolstering the industry’s jeremiad was the chief staffer for House Commerce chair Joe Barton. Howard Waltzman predicted, “there would not be a bill sent to the president that included [non-discriminatory net neutrality requirements] because the House would not agree to it.” Waltzman, the majority chief counsel, also proclaimed that “the Snowe-Dorgan amendment” requiring net neutrality would fail in the Senate.

These are the people—along with their bosses—who are placing the business plans of a few special interests before everyone else now online. Web 2.0 will be shaped to fit their image of broadband unless they are stopped.

alaska estate loan realloan advance cash $1000loans 100 mortgage commericalloans 103homebuyer loans 1st time000 loan 4099 auto loanloan adjustable rate Map

Why the Phone and Cable Industries Fear the Net

Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and others oppose network neutrality because they fear competition: from the Internet. In this piece I wrote for The Nation magazine, online, I discuss what their plans are for our broadband futures. Read it and fight (on) for a more democratic, diverse, and even perhaps competitive digital media system.

What Google Told the SEC and Investors About Threat to Net

“Our business depends on continued and unimpeded access to the Internet by us and our users. Internet access providers may be able to block, degrade, or charge for access to certain of our products and services, which could lead to additional expenses and the loss of users and advertisers.

The provision of our products and services depends on the ability of our users to access the Internet, and certain of our products require significant bandwidth to work effectively. Currently, this access is provided by companies that have increasing market power in the broadband and Internet access marketplace, including incumbent telephone companies, cable companies and mobile communications companies. Some of these providers have stated that they may take measures that could degrade, disrupt, or increase the cost of user access to certain of our products by restricting or prohibiting the use of their infrastructure to support or facilitate our offerings, or by charging increased fees to us or our users to provide our offerings. These activities may be permitted in the U.S. after recent regulatory changes, including recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Communications Commission and under legislation being considered by the U.S. Congress. While interference with access to our popular products appears unlikely, such carrier interference with our online products or services could result in a loss of existing users and advertisers, increased costs, and could impair our ability to attract new users and advertisers, thereby harming our revenue and growth.”

From 10 Q. Filed on 8/9/2006

Hands Off the Internet: Better Check Your Facts, Part.1

This front-group for the Internet monopoly want-to-be’s has a “back to school” lesson just posted about Quality of Service. But they are misinforming the public. This debate isn’t about true Quality of Service (QoS). Supporters of Internet Freedom (net neutrality) support QoS. But what Mike McCurry and Christopher Wolf’s funders really want is something more like OurQoS. That will give them a monopoly-like broadband service where their applications whiz by (helped via the network control mechanisms Hands Off member Alcatel is building for Verizon and AT&T). Their vision of OurQoS creates toll lanes and slow paths for everyone else. Ask your backers. What they are relying on for profits isn’t QoS. It’s really a “policy” based routing racket.

It’s the network neutrality folks who are fighting for fair traffic management. It’s the Hands Off types who want to allow privately run online traffic cops patrol the broadband beat. That’s why we will need Congress to restore the Internet’s non-discrimination safeguards.

What Comcast Uber-Lobbyist David Cohen’s Isn’t Saying about Net Neutrality

David Cohen is Comcast’s chief political lobbyist. His role is to help the company quash potential competition. Cohen operates in D.C., at state capitals, and city hall. When Comcast believes that competition will emerge, they call on Mr. Cohen. For example, Comcast played a major role in the passage of anti-public interest legislation in a number of states banning community broadband networks.

Now the Roberts family has set Mr. Cohen to undermine what is the biggest threat to the nation’s # 1 cable monopoly: an open Internet. Cohen just wrote an op-ed yesterday [registration required] in the San Jose Mercury News. He had the chutzpah to say that rules ensuring all online content is treated fairly would be harmful because they could stifle “a child friendly-content zone” online! This coming from one of the leading providers of porn—Comcast! Comcast has also just begun promoting some of its new on-demand channels, including Playboy, Howard Stern, and something called “Dating on Demand” (from its website: “our stealth crew of sneaky eavesdroppers trails close behind and captures everything on tape. And we mean everything — the good, the bad and the “Holy crap can you believe he did that!”).

So, when Mr. Cohen makes the phony charge that net neutrality would take channel space away from kids services or health information—what he really means is that Comcast wants to control all the space itself. It wants to use bandwidth/channel capacity so it can profit from porn and other high-revenue content. It doesn’t want any video or online competition to emerge that might take away eyeballs, ad dollars, and subscription revenues.

The truth is Comcast, like other net neutrality opponents AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner, are terrified of an open Internet. If the Net remains open, then anyone can provide phone or video service. Who would need a Comcast then? No one.

That’s why Comcast is opposed to net neutrality, and why it is buying next-generation broadband technology from Cisco. Comcast wants to serve as a gatekeeper over the flow of video and data coming into our homes. Net neutrality rules would prevent Comcast from becoming a digital super-monopoly.
Beware of cable lobbyists—they’re a hazard to our democracy’s health.