Tag Archive for 'Obama'

FCC approves net neutrality rules – good compromise or welcoming your new ISP overlords?

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules in relation to net neutrality, or how internet providers handle traffic and various services.

Democrats on the panel have voted to approve the new enforceable net neutrality rules, which will restrict companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to content unfavorable to them.

The Obama Administration has claimed a win in relation to its net neutrality campaign promise, maintaining it represents progress. Others are claiming the measures do not go nearly far enough. Obama has said:

As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my Administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact.

Unsurprisingly, Republicans at the FCC and in Congress are opposed to the new measures, with Sen. Kay Baily from Texas labeling it an unprecedented power grab by unelected members. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell accused the FCC of becoming a vigilante group in order to help Obama with a misguided campaign promise.

However, there has also been disapproval dished out from many net neutrality advocates. The New America Foundation has said the new rules prioritise the profits of corporations such as AT&T over the public, internet entrepreneurs and local businesses. Public Knowledge maintains that the rules fall far short of what they could have been and Free Press has asserted that the rules amount to fake net neutrality. The Institute of Policy Integrity has labeled the new rules “tepid”.

The main criticisms seem to be that while wired broadband providers may not unreasonably (whatever unreasonably means) discriminate against any lawful traffic, the rules don’t apply to wireless providers. Also, “paid prioritisation” has not been banned. This means that providers may be able to set up paid priority access on networks. “Managed services” are allowed over ‘last mile’ broadband. Providers can sell prioritised IP services of any kind.

In short, critics say that the new rules are full of loopholes and grey areas, hence the distinct lack of celebration from net neutrality advocates. As Ars Technica has pointed out, “damning with faint praise” seems to sum up responses from long-time net neutrality supporters.

Read Write Web has a decent rundown of the “six key principles” underpinning the new rules if you are interested in looking a little closer.

I take issue with the label Green, here’s why.

From a mainstream communications point of view, I think there’s a growing issue with labeling things “Green”, or having a separate category for Green, as is nearly always the case. It’s true, a few individuals, organisations and businesses have started to move beyond using the Green label but most have not yet.

Green

Mainstream backdrop

A little background is in order first. Over the past few decades, since the sixties and even before that, there has been growing concern around the world over rising pollution levels and increasing environmental degradation in general. In addition, world population is now approaching seven billion people, estimated to reach nine billion around 2050.

Further, since the eighties, mounting scientific evidence of human induced climate change (despite ongoing attempts to discredit the science), has become occasional front page news, and pretty much never out of the news completely. That’s most unlikely to change over the coming years.

We had the situation late last year where governments who agree that climate change exists and is a significant problem, met in Copenhagen to attempt to hash out a binding global agreement to curb global emissions. There was unprecedented media attention on the COP15 event and an enormous amount of pressure from different individuals and groups to achieve a sensible outcome. Needless to say, there was an accord reached but expectations were not met at Copenhagen.

However, it’s not over by a long shot. Global warming is still on the agenda and it’s not going away. As I said on Twitter the other day, I’m 100% convinced that climate change will continue to cause catastrophic damage to the careers of quite a few of the world’s politicians. In Australia (where I live), Kevin Rudd’s position as Prime Minister comes to mind. Among other issues, after publicly staking so much on it, he never really recovered from the failure at Copenhagen and his party’s failure to get a proposed emissions trading scheme signed into law. He was ousted from within the party after a significant drop in the polls. The new leader, Julia Gillard, will face the issue again should she be reelected.

The problem with Green

So given the contemporary situation, what’s my issue with the current proliferation of the “Green” label or category? What’s not to like? What we have appearing all over the place recently are things like Green sections on popular news blogs, sites and in newspapers. We have Green products proliferating, and companies advertising the new Greenness of their products and services, in some cases whether they are actually more environmentally friendly or not.

“Greenwashing” is a term I have less of a problem with by the way, as it seems like a fairly descriptive and accurate term for what has gone on in some cases. BP’s Beyond Petroleum makeover springs to mind as an obvious example, but there are many subtler versions out there. But I digress.

Now, after Copenhagen, we have governments such as the Obama Administration talking up a much needed push towards a new, emerging green economy, and the many green collar jobs that will create. We have technology related blogs and sites introducing Greentech sections. We have Green online social networkers wanting to build sizeable communities and become ‘friends’ with as many people as possible in order to help spread the word and get action on various environmental issues.

Don’t get me wrong, this is all well and good. Green has been useful and has worked well to attract and communicate with a certain percentage of people. I don’t think the fact that there’s a growing awareness and a proliferation of information, ideas and action is bad at all. It’s brilliant! The main reason I now have a issue with the label “Green”, is that we have got to the point where it’s going to marginalise what needs to become very mainstream, ubiquitous in fact.

So what next?

There are many people, perhaps the majority, who do not want to identify as Green and probably never will. Green is a turn off to many. Even though the label Green has become a lot more mainstream, to many it still conjures up images of hippies, “greenies”, “treehuggers” and environmental activists climbing chimneys.

But hey, guess what? A lot of these people would still like to help fix the environment even though they don’t identify with the Green label. Many might switch to clean power given half a chance, rather than use coal-fired power, if it comes at the right price that is. Many might buy an electric car one day that runs on clean energy. They might buy it because the technology is more advanced and it’s more efficient. They might buy more environmentally friendly products, but because they are better quality products, not just because they are greener.  They might buy locally grown food, it might be organic, but they might buy it because it tastes better and is healthier, and because Jamie Oliver says it’s better. But green? No not me.

We will have big businesses who come to realise that investing in clean technologies, efficiencies and more sustainable production processes will in the long run make them even more profitable. It will also give them a leading edge when it comes to how their brand is viewed by the public, their customers, suppliers, shareholders and by the media. They won’t have to shout “we’re Green” and try and make it stick. It’ll become obvious they are making real changes when perhaps others aren’t doing so much.

The issues need to be so mainstream that they need to be integrated within many other information categories: news, technology, politics, business and finance, transport, energy, food, lifestyle, you name it. The majority of people in the world are going to need to change the way we live and work in order to move towards a more sustainable situation. Having a Green category that appeals to only a minority (admittedly growing) percentage of people is simply not going to be enough to do the job.

So I think it’s time to move beyond the Green label. It’s been useful but it’s served its purpose. It is happening to a certain extent but it needs to go much further. Most of the time I think Green in used for want of something better. I think sustainability is not a bad term to use within businesses. I think the term Clean is useful when talking about the clean economy, clean energy and cleantech. Eco can be useful but is a bit like Green in that it has often been used as a greenwashing instrument. Perhaps we need some new terms. Perhaps we don’t need a new label at all. After all, the idea of, and push for a more sustainable future needs to become so mainstream that it doesn’t have a name anymore, it’s just normal. We have a long way to go.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree we need to move beyond “Green”?

Obama, the iPhone and iPad information age is hurting democracy?

Obama

Image by Sister72

In the context of talking about the importance of education and Thomas Jefferson’s recognition that people must attempt to stay informed to make democracy work effectively, Obama has asserted that information is becoming a diversion and a form or entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment and emancipation.

On the state of the current information rich digital environment, Obama said:

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,”

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

Obama complained that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Obama said.

I think Obama is correct in saying the fact that we are bombarded with all kinds of content is putting more pressure on us, and that it can be a distraction, but only if we let it. The flows of information have certainly increased, especially for those of use who use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, read blogs and use other forms of social media regularly.

Having said that, I now read fewer newspapers and magazines and watch less tv. My tv viewing has become much more selective, and I’m starting to be able to find the video content I want to watch on the web, rather than it being selected for me by tv stations. See my recent post 3 places to find inspiring and intelligent online video.

I am certainly not convinced that the increased flow of information puts pressure on our democracy. What is not stated, at least in this recent statement, and what is the really dramatic change in relation to democracy and the media, is that information is now flowing in multiple directions. It’s not just coming from big media organisations, it’s coming from citizens as well. This may put pressure on us in terms of managing and filtering the information, but surely this is healthy for democracy!

Like Obama, my childhood years were spent in a world without the internet, where information in the media generally flowed in one direction only, principally from large media organisations. Now we have the web and social media. Sure, this has increased the volume of information, and much of the information and arguments leave a lot to be desired, but surely this in NOT a bad thing for democracy?

There is now a plethora of opinions and information on any given subject (including the one I’m writing about now), flowing in multiple directions at any given time. Nobody said democracy was going to be easy, or tidy, did they? Surely those who learn to thrive in these new information rich environments will prosper, both financially and in terms of knowledge, education and empowerment. The digital divide between rich and poor is something that may become more and more apparent in this regard, as time goes by. This is certainly something that needs addressing by people such as Obama.

It is true that there are a lot of diversions on the web to distract our focus, but it’s up to us to filter the information available and do what we want with it. We now have the option to create our own as well.

I must say that one big downside that I can see in all this is the fact that there are now millions and millions of these new devices being produced quarterly around world. Electronic waste is a real and growing problem. The question of how we are going to live sustainably in a world with nine billion people is integral to the aims of education and empowerment that Obama speaks of. Does increased information flow have to mean increased, unsustainable consumption too? But perhaps that’s another post for another day.

Gulf oil spill social media response

There seems no doubt that there’s going to be a large amount of social media content in relation to the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If the impact of the ongoing spill turns out to be as bad as many are suggesting, there is sure to be a continuing deluge of images, video clips, blog posts and status updates hitting the social web.

The aftermath of the spill could go on for weeks or months and have a devastating impact on the Gulf Coast. In addition to mainstream media coverage, something tells me that as the oil spill reaches the coast, citizen journalism is going to go into overdrive. With all the clean-up volunteers and people living in the area, no doubt people will tell their own stories with cameras, blogs and via Twitter and Facebook accounts.

Unsurprisingly, right from the outset blogs often categorised as “green” such as Grist (a Technorati Top 100 blog) have been covering the spill. However, soon after it became a lead news story pretty much everywhere, I noticed “Gulf” trending on Twitter as people expressed themselves and passed around links to news updates, images and blog posts.

A couple of days ago NASA released the embedded satellite images of the spill, which very popular blogs such as Mashable and The Huffington Post helped to distribute far and wide on the web. The Huffington Post now has a page dedicated to ongoing coverage of the spill, with well over a thousand comments from readers.

Gulf Oil Spill 1

gulf_tmo_2010119_2

ReadWriteWeb reported that a multimedia website has now been set up by British Petroleum, Transocean, (the oil rig owners), the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Department. The site has a Social Media section which links to a Facebook Page, Twitter, Flickr and YouTube.

After the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina relief effort, the White House seems keen to communicate via all media that it will do “whatever it takes for as long as it takes to address this crisis”.  Here are a couple of messages that have appeared on Twitter and YouTube in response to the crisis:

obama_oil_spill

This video posted on YouTube was linked from Obama’s Twitter account with the message “From day one, we have launched & coordinated a relentless response to the Gulf Crisis.”

Let’s hope the Obama administration and the companies involved follow through with on their promises to put maximum effort into the clean up. Whatever the case, this is not going to be good.

Top Ten Fastest Rising Google Oz Searches For 09, Swine Flu, Twitter, Bing, Masterchef Included

Google Australia has revealed the top ten fastest rising searches for 2009 on google.com.au. A year ago the top searches included Heath Ledger, Barack Obama and iPhones. This year so far, the top three fastest rising searches have been ‘swine flu’, ‘susan boyle and ‘masterchef’.

Notably, among the top ten were also ‘twitter’, ‘bing’ and ‘stimulus package’. It’s certainly no surprise that ‘Michael Jackson’ has been one of the fastest rising people searches of the year so far, given his sudden and untimely death.

Following are a few of the top ten lists. See the rest of the lists at Official Google Australia Blog.

Fastest rising searches of 2009:
swine flu
susan boyle
masterchef
stimulus package
wimbledon
twitter
bing
one hd
afl fixture 2009
bruno

Fastest rising ‘people’ searches of 2009:
susan boyle
bruno
jade goody
michael jackson
taylor swift
lily allen
robert pattinson
lady gaga
megan fox
stephenie meyer

Fastest rising searches for products/services of 2009:
twitter
bing
one hd
windows 7
facebook
skype download
picnik
avg free download
google chrome
itunes download