Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 11-24-2006

by


Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Nokia to shut VoIP and file-sharing

. . . It’s not that Nokia has made a U-turn on VoIP. But [its planned bandwidth-shaper] tool would prioritize the traffic of preferred services, giving the control back to partners content providers, says Nokia. File-sharing could be allowed, but for specific contents or at special occasions. With such a development, mobile operators are anticipating some Net Neutrality debate for cellphones.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Strains Showing in Longtime Friendship
Telecom firms have supported Rep. Dingell, and until recently, the incoming House committee chairman has supported them [via Imus Show Blog]

WASHINGTON, November 21, 2006 — Rep. John Dingell greeted the Republican-drafted telecommunications bill, designed to speed the Bell companies’ entry into the television marketplace, with sarcasm and cynicism.

“We have before us, then, a piece of the purest special interest legislation, something which will benefit the few at the expense of the many,” the Michigan Democrat said on June 8, as the House debated the bill.

“This legislation is going to benefit the special interests, particularly the cable and the telephone industry,” said Dingell, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell lost that battle; the bill passed the House overwhelmingly, 321-101. Even among Democrats, 106 voted for the final bill, with 92 opposed.

But with Democrats taking control of Congress in the midterm elections, the 2006 telecommunications overhaul is almost certain to be killed. Democrats are not likely to cooperate with any Republican-led push for the measure in December’s post-election session. Despite the wide margin in the House, supporters of the telecom bill doubt they can secure enough votes in the Senate for passage this year.

And with Dingell set to reclaim in January the gavel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which he vigorously ruled from 1981 until 1995, the shape of telecommunications legislation in 2007 could be vastly different.

The likely death of the telecom bill is a major defeat for the Bell companies — AT&T Inc., BellSouth, Verizon Communications and Qwest Communications International — and their lobbying arm, the U.S. Telecom Association, for whom passage of the bill was the key legislative priority. It would have allowed the Bell companies to string cable television wires without having to get approval by local governments.

But for the Bell companies, the most bitter irony in this turn of fate in the telecom wars is this: John Dingell was once one of their closest friends. He took their campaign contributions and, for more than two decades, promoted their legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. It’s a relationship that soured only within the past year.

On the night of the Bells’ pyrrhic victory in June, Dingell was acerbic as he walked off the House floor, just past 10 p.m. The House Rules Committee had denied the full House a vote on an amendment he authored to restore cities’ control of their rights of way. A reporter asked him why that happened.

“This was decided by a very unprincipled lobby,” Dingell said.

“But you used to be friends with the Bells,” the reporter remarked.

“I have found that I was, but they were not.”

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

On Net Neutrality: Congress Wakes Up to a Watchful Public

On the issue of Net Neutrality, companies like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast outspent public interest advocates on a scale of 500 to 1 – pushing Congress to remove the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that enabled the Internet to become the greatest vehicle for free speech and economic innovation.

[ . . .]

As much as anything, the election sent a message to Congress to stop currying favor with moneyed interests and return to governing in the public interest.

Near the top of this new agenda will be restoring Net Neutrality. Many in Congress came to this realization after receiving more than a million letters from concerned citizens urging them to maintain a free and open Internet.

Whereas before, the phone companies had been confident that Congress would simply sign-off on industry-written legislation. Now — as the 109th Congress comes to a close — no member can vote with the telecom cartel without feeling the full heat of public scrutiny.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Are You a Freelancer or a Solo Entrepreneur? Use Guy Kawasaki’s Mantra as He Meant

by

Guy Didn’t Mean Don’t Have a Vision or a Plan

Strategic Plans logo

With the start of the Perfect Virtual Manager, I’ve been talking a lot to bloggers. Even more interesting is that I’ve been not talking to a lot of them. I’ve noticed something about people who work outside of a traditional setting. We fall into two categories: freelancers and entrepreneurs. Some think they are one, and they’re really the other. Which one are you? Do you know that for sure?

Guy Kawasaki wrote a wonderful post in January called, Mantras Versus Missions. Thank you, Roger von Oech, for reminding me of it. You see, I think some folks do as Guy suggests — make a mantra — and unfortunately, they stop there. That’s not what Guy said to do. He was talking about replacing a mission statement with something more focused. His mantra was meant as a guiding force, not as a replacement for a business plan.

A person with fabulous skills and only a mantra is a freelancer not a solo entrepreneur.

The two think and work differently.

Do you know how to tell a freelancer from a solo entrepreneur?

Turn the page and I’ll show how.
[Read more…]

Net Neutrality 11-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

New Congress Likely To Support Net Neutrality

Internet neutrality proponents believe that the recent change in Congress is likely to boost their efforts to push legislation that would prohibit tiered access to the Internet.

[ . . .]

“The outlook for better, more public-spirited Internet legislation is now quite good,” the group said through a prepared statement.

In fact, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who proposed legislation supporting their cause, is set to lead telecommunications policy for the House majority in 2007. So is U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, who said he would propose a telecommunications reform bill with public interest and net neutrality in mind.

Dingell is positioned to take over as the chair of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, which held hearings on the issue during the last congressional session. The committee presides over telecommunications and Internet policies. Markey will chair a subcommittee devoted exclusively to those issues.

SaveTheInternet also sees hope in the U.S. Senate, where all representatives who supported net neutrality were re-elected and several challengers who came out in favor of the issue were also elected.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Booz Allen Hamilton on Money and Innovation

by

I Agree, But I’m Not Surprised

BusinessWeekONLINE

On November 13, Booz Allen Hamilton released the 2nd Annual Global Innovation 1,000 Survey. Business week’s Jesse Stanton summarized the study in an article “How to Turn Money Into Innovation,” on November 14.

The study, which analyzes the relationship between R&D spending and performance, focused on the 1,000 public companies located anywhere in the world that spent the most on Research and Development in 2005. The study by Booz Allen Hamilton found that

  • R&D spending is on the rise, but as a percentage of overall sales it is falling. Companies are finding ways to optimize their investment in R&D.
  • Gross profits as a percentage of sales is the ONLY PERFORMANCE VARIABLE THAT SHOW A RELATIONSHIP.
  • No correlation exists between R&D spending and the number of patents that result.
  • Sales growth, financial performance, operating profitability, and earnings growth show NO STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIP to R&D spending.
  • An increase in outsourcing to and funding in Research and Development in China and India is being fueld by a need to be closer to fast-growing markets

The Booz Allen Harrison study showed that some companies have learned how to successfully underspend in R&D and overperform in providing innovation — their spending on average half as much on R&D as their peers in industry, but their performance is as much as three times higher. The companies that stand out in the study include Kellogg, Apple, Boston Scientific, Tata Motos, Christian Dior, and Kobe Street.

High innovating companies each follow their own unique model.

  • Black and Decker coordinates design from its worldwide headquarters, but aligns R&D closely with individual business units.
  • SanDisk strategic decisions are made by a small group of executives who meet biweekly.
  • Google generates ideas as part of its distinct skills set.
  • Toyota develops products and processes effectively and efficiently.
  • Apple understands customers and product selection.

The similaries found in the Booz Allen Hamilton Survey weren’t surprising.These common factors included what Booz Allend called a “value chain.” The value chain speaks to four key areas in which highly innovative companies exhibited strong competency: ideation, project selection, product development, and commecialization. Innovation is a company-wide investment.

Sustainable innovation depends on having the tools and processes to move from ideation through commercialization. Second, successful companies link R&D with C—customers. At Illinois Tool Works (ITW), for example, R&D engineers are required to spend time working in customers’ plants — Business Week Online on the Booz Allen Hamilton Blogal Innovation 1,000.

Mr. Stanton asks for more concrete answers. I find the value chain confirmation here is powerful enough model. Innovation thrives in a culture that values innovation beyond the simple action of throwing money in the direction of generating new ideas. The investment of currency in innovation has to be considered, thought through as any sound business venture does. Such an invetment recquires thoughtful process from ideation through the decision to move forward on a project, through every customer centered decision that drives the development, to each piece and parcle that introduces and informs the public about the new product during the commercialization phase.

In other words, innovation must be based in quality thinking that that stands on a firm and deep intimacy with the customers’ experience and understanding of the customers’ needs. That is the key driver to productive and useful innovative change that fuels growth.

How new is that idea?

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Click the title to read the Business Week article
How to Turn Money into Innovation