Category: News

The idea has been on my mind for several years now, ever since BusinessWeek began singing the praises of IT outsourcing. It was fun to see Jeff Jarvis post on this topic a few weeks back.

Verizon has been aggressively marketing their new fiber optic service in my town over the past two or three months, with a barrage of mailings, adverts, and e-mail. In fact, my favorite was a “Fedex” envelope practically begging me to sign up. And, (full disclosure), since I’m a shareholder and also interested in the improved channel selection and Innernet speeds, I want to anyway.

Except one thing keeps nagging me. They offer a “promotional bundle” for 12 months for $95 for phone, Innernet and cable tv, which is a pretty solid deal. Currently I pay about $135 a month for those three services. My trouble comes when I read the following line in the fine print: “At the end of the promotional period, the monthly recurring charge will revert to the then-current monthly rates.”

The fine print then goes on to mention a number of restrictions, conditions, fees, and other items that may apply to each of the services. However, no where in these adverts and mailings is there any clue as to what the “current” monthly rates might be.

The best I could do was to look online to try to discover this, but their site had nothing broken down clearly, of course. Here’s what I found.

Innernet – Three options, 5 Mbps / 2 Mbps – $39.99; 15 Mbps / 2 Mbps $49.99; 30 Mbps / 5 Mbps $179.99; The promo refers to a 20 Mbps / 5 Mbps plan which doesn’t exist according to the website.

TV – The base plan is $42.99 / month, and I would have to add a $7.99 / month sports package to get back to where I am with my current cable. The cable set top box could also be another $4.99 / month, but it’s not 100% clear on that point.

Phone – Here again it’s not 100% clear what “Freedom Essentials” services Verizon is referring to. When I read this, the cheapest package is $34.99, but is missing key services like caller id and call waiting. Adding those in brings up the price to $44.99. Either way, that’s far more than my $30 / month with taxes from Vonage.

In total, right now, I’m paying ~$104 / month for Innernet and cable tv, with the sports package thrown in. And I’m paying another $30 / month for home phone service from Vonage. The grand total is $134 / month.

Under the “current monthly rates” from Verizon, barring any unknown discounts, I would be paying $45 (phone), $43 + $8 + $5 = $56 (cable), and either $50 or $180 a month (Innernet). The grand total is either $151 or $281, whatever the correct Innernet charge is supposed to be.

Until Verizon cleans up their offering to make the monthly charges clealer, I’m not in any hurry to switch. Especially since changing again is always difficult.

The National Weather Service issued the following alert for my area:

Somerset (New Jersey)

SHORT TERM FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOUNT HOLLY NJ
930 AM EST SUN MAR 4 2007
NJZ007-009-010-012-PAZ054-055-061-062-041700-
WARREN-HUNTERDON-SOMERSET-MIDDLESEX-CARBON-MONROE-LEHIGH-
NORTHAMPTON-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF…WASHINGTON…FLEMINGTON…SOMERVILLE…
NEW BRUNSWICK…JIM THORPE…STROUDSBURG…ALLENTOWN…
BETHLEHEM…EASTON
930 AM EST SUN MAR 4 2007
.NOW…
SCATTERED FLURRIES AND ISOLATED HEAVIER SNOW SHOWERS WILL MOVE
THROUGH THIS MORNING. DURING THE HEAVIER SNOW SHOWERS, A QUICK
COATING WILL ACCUMULATE ESPECIALLY ON GRASSY AREAS AND LESS
TRAVELED ROADS. WATCH FOR SLIPPERY SPOTS ESPECIALLY OVER HIGHER
TERRAIN LOCATIONS WHERE TEMPERATURES ARE AND WILL REMAIN BELOW
FREEZING THIS MORNING.
$$
TFG

After what felt like a nice respite from the cold of the past month, are we really back below freezing?

One of the side effects of traveling on these multi-country “tours” is a lot of time in airports, planes, cars, and trains. While there’s not really all that much about waiting to get somewhere that’s truly exciting, the plus side is I’ve had a chance to work off a three or four month stack of BusinessWeek magazines. Reading so much back to back gives you a funky perspective on their articles.

Take this one titled “A Little Blue Pill for Women?”, about a female version of Viagra.

Drug development is never easy, however, and flibanserin faces a tougher road than usual. There’s an ongoing controversy about whether or not a female analog to erectile dysfunction even exists. In October, the Endocrine Society issued guidelines cautioning that sexual dysfunction, if it exists at all, may have nothing to do with any “defect in the woman’s physical sexual response system.” The Society concluded that the most common current treatment, testosterone, should not be recommended. The big question: If a woman doesn’t experience physical desire, is it a medical condition, like inadequate blood flow in men, or something purely psychological? “Maybe she just doesn’t like the guy she’s with,” says Washington (D.C.) psychotherapist David Waldman.

I’ll let you read in to that paragraph what you will, but I doubt the debate about Viargra was whether erectile dysfunction was caused because “he just didn’t like the woman he’s with”.

In that same issue, the cover story was about How Business Trounced the Trial Lawyers, which gives us insight in to how Business has made significant strides in getting tort reform done throughout most of the states. However, there’s a concern in the business world that tort reform might go to far. Could it be business is concerned that individuals might have, from time to time, legitimate grounds for complaint?

Sitting in a conference room high over Houston’s Galleria neighborhood, James L. Reed Jr. and two other attorneys from Looper, Reed & McGraw contemplate the new legal landscape. Looper Reed’s 60 attorneys represent small and midsize businesses, so one would presume that their clients have only benefited from the new environment. But Reed notes that there has been a “ripple effect” from the changes that is affecting commercial cases, too. His colleagues J. Cary Gray and Jack Rains, both self-described conservative Republicans, agree.

“It’s a hell of a lot harder for one of our clients when a contract gets breached to collect all of their damages,” complains Gray, noting that conservative judges take a very narrow view of what kind of damages they will even allow a jury to consider. In general, Gray says, he thinks many Texas judges are “afraid of big verdicts coming out of their courtrooms,” even in a dispute between businesses. Citing a group of rice producers he and Gray represent and the limits they may face on their claims, Reed notes: “They’re starting to get educated about how much tort reform is too much tort reform.”

No, as it turns out, from a vantage high above Houston, in their glimmering tower, the titans of Business have decided that when they screw each other, they can’t successfully sue anymore. That they may harm individuals who no longer have recourse through the courts is irrelevant – they’ve accidentally shut off their OWN legal options as well. Boo-hoo!

The article that took the cake, in my opinion was on Steve Jobs and the backdating of options. Turns out there’s a serious question about how involved he was and how much he knew/approved, and the reports coming out haven’t really clarified the situation very much.

Jobs is a master marketer whose 30 years of experience have sharpened his skill at creating stylish, breakthrough products. He combines not just hardware and software smarts but a sense for how all that technology must fit together with the music, movies, and other content consumers want. Jobs proved that in his stewardship of Pixar Animation Studios Inc. (DIS ) before it was sold to Walt Disney & Co. (DIS ) a year ago, and in forging agreements with music companies and Hollywood studios to create the iTunes marketplace. The reward for shareholders: Apple’s stock price has climbed 1,025% since Jan. 1, 2001, just before the iPod era began, to a total market value of $72 billion.

That’s why few expect Apple’s board to push Jobs out even if the government does move against him. Some suggest that it would hang tough with him even if criminal charges were filed by the Justice Dept., which is a remote possibility for many reasons. So far, the government has found sufficient grounds to indict only five executives on backdating out of all those at the 200-plus companies involved in the scandal. It’s not easy to prove that an executive intended to deceive shareholders rather than just engaged in sloppy paperwork, say lawyers. And there would be hell to pay for going after Jobs given the damage that could be done to Apple’s investors, customers, and business partners. Says Harvard Business School management professor David B. Yoffie: “Obviously, these are inappropriate activities that anyone should be ashamed of. But it wouldn’t be in shareholders’ best interests to have Steve Jobs leave for something that happened four years ago that didn’t have a material impact on their holdings.”

In short, Steve came back to Apple. Apple made lots of money for shareholders. Steve may have been at least careless or incompetent on this matter, if not acted illegally. But Apple made lots of money for shareholders. So Steve should stay and the government should leave him alone, even if he acted illegally.

At least Jack Welch, from time to time, writes some good commentary on the last page. Take this article on corruption globally.

Now, anyone who has ever put in a new kitchen knows that renovations always cost twice what you expect, but an $11 billion overrun certainly seems to suggest that, yes, there is corruption in America.

But it’s rare?comparatively. We recently returned from a trip to Latin America where we met with hundreds of business people in Brazil and Argentina. Their stories of ubiquitous corruption, much of it at the hands of the government, were chilling. Tax evasion is widespread; enforcement is spotty. In Argentina, several CEOs told us that if you attempt to conduct business without playing by the unwritten rules imposed by layer after layer of government bureaucrats, an army of tax auditors arrives at your door, paralyzing your company and often times staying until an employee or two goes to jail.

He goes on to point out similar scenarios throughout most of the world. So, before you complain about “corruption” being a major issue in the US, keep in mind that we’re well ahead of most of the world on this front. Unless you’re talking intellectual corruption brought on by some of these BusinessWeek articles.

No one’s asking you to pay US$40,000 to be able to pick from the box that will let you miss out on being drafted in to compulsary service, afterall, like in Thailand.

Check out this great article that summarises how media companies basically don’t want you to be able to do anything, ever, with the content they “own”, anywhere in the world. If only those pesky “governments” would hurry up.

Sorry, Steve. The real reason no one’s buying Windows Vista is because 1) what’s the point? and 2) you basically need a new computer to run the darn thing anyway.

It’s good to know that our government’s incompetenceunder this administration isn’t limited just to FEMA, the DoD, and other major organizations. Apparently even the Consumer Products Safety Comission wants to get in on the act.

CNN today is reporting that Prince Harry is scheduled to be sent to Iraq. While it may be a more common experience in the UK, it still strikes me as rare to have one of the members of the “elite class” have to participate in such mundane activities as war. Perhaps if more members of the US political establishment fought in wars they would be more cautious about the ones they choose to initiate.

From the Really Ridiculous files, today we bring you the latest attempt by the RIAA to harass those who it believes are illegally sharing music files over the Internet.

The plan? Simple. Set up a website to collect the cash while having the ISPs do the dirty work of soliciting payment.

RIAA – How low can you go?

After reading this article, you have to wonder how long until the government either mandates a) no WiFi routers can be sold without basic monitoring & authentication procedures in place and enabled, and b) it is illegal to circumvent monitoring & authentication procedures on WiFi routers. Content owners, corporations outside the technology field, homeland security experts, and law enforcement would all pile on behind such a bill, without a doubt. After all, only someone who’s engaging in criminal activity would need unmonitored access to the Internet.