Kevin Kriegbaum's Blog

Above, President Obama explains his support for net neutrality and why you too should support it.

Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be able to restrict people’s access to various websites.   If Net Neutrality is not followed, ISPs can use their ability to restrict or slow connections (often called “throttling”) to websites to solicit money from these websites in order to guarantee a fast connection.

Earlier today, I was linked this blog, The Oatmeal, in which the author calls out US Senator Ted Cruz who tweeted:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

In this open letter to the Senator, the blogger humorously takes the stance of attempting to educate Cruz about Net Neutrality and why it is important to support it, as it is instrumental in keeping the Internet a free and fair place for individuals and companies alike.   The Oatmeal paints it as the bipartisan issue it is, as it is unnecessary to attempt to divide the country over an issue everyone should support, while also pointing out the absurdity of comparing Net Neutrality to Obamacare.

A graphical depiction of Comcast’s throttling of Netflix, with comments by The Oatmeal

However, it is also pointed out that the Senator accepted a lot of money from telecom giant Comcast in support of his campaign for senator, and that Comcast has already abused throttling in order to force Netflix to pay them millions of dollars and of course would oppose net neutrality.

Overall, this blog post has emphasized two issues that I believe will be incredibly important in American politics over the next several years.  One, will Americans fight to preserve the Internet as a bastion of independence and freedom? And two, will the American public continue to allow corporations to buy off politicians through “campaign money” or will they use their votes to preserve the sanctity of the American democracy.

Works Cited:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/11/comcast-goes-on-capitol-hill-spending-spree-in-advance-of-merger-hearings/

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/united-nations-638×425.jpg

If the UN was fully funded, I believe that Arc and Social Enterprise would still be necessary because the UN wouldn’t necessarily be able to help all those who need it.For example, even if the UN was fully funded, I don’t believe it would be efficient enough to help all of those in need, as it is difficult to get the 193 members of the UN to agree on an issue and to effectively organize a way to aid said issue.

Furthermore, while Arc has helped small groups of entrepreneurs in Rwanda, the UN would most likely not focus on helping this small subsection of people; instead it would focus on larger problems, such as the current Ebola outbreak in Africa.  In addition, Social Entrepreneurs tackle issues with the goal of increasing social value, through attempting such things as increasing the college enrollment rate of the poor in developed countries.  The UN, meanwhile, may be tackling issues such as hunger or disease, in less-developed countries, where the consequences of the problems is death.

Works Cited

http://skollworldforum.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/Global_Reach/ARC_Initiative

Upward Arc

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/unms/whatisms.shtml

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49310&Cr=ebola&Cr1=#.VGLJkfTF800

http://www.bendib.com/newones/2007/may/small/5-7-Wanted-Immigrant-Labor.jpg

This blog post is in response to Ingrid Yau’s blog post analyzing this opinion piece from the New York Times, which argues that Americans have gotten softer over the years and are therefore are less willing to work the same jobs as they have in previous decades/centuries.  As a result, immigrant workers fulfill can fulfill the need for hard labor that Americans are unwilling to fill.  Through the discussion of an anecdote from the comments of the original article, Ingrid concludes that immigrants to America do not actually take jobs from Americans because “even the most unskilled American worker wouldn’t want a job that is physically demanding” and that “the generation nowadays just cannot stand boring assembly-line jobs.”

As an American who is entirely for increased immigration, I disagree with the conclusion Ingrid draws from the article.  While it is true that the number of Americans who work jobs requiring manual labor has decreased, so have the number of jobs requiring manual labor as the US has transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.  Furthermore, many assembly-line jobs have been replaced through the use of machinery and robotics to automate the process.  Finally, although the story of “pooch43” in the comments is an interesting one, for every story of people avoiding a job requiring hard labor, there are just as many of people doing incredibly difficult work in order to make ends meet.

Works Cited

Response to NYT Blog – Hard Work is what Immigrants do

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/09/what-happened-to-the-american-work-ethic-2/hard-work-is-what-immigrants-do?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A14%22%7D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/HNIC_Logo.svg/1048px-HNIC_Logo.svg.png

From its television debut in 1952 until the end of the 2013-2014 NHL season, CBC had exclusive rights to Hockey Night in Canada, a hugely popular TV broadcast of 2 NHL games on Saturday night, often interspersed with segments, such as Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner, that discussed various hockey related topics as well as the games being played.  HNIC was one of CBC’s most popular shows, until Rogers took over at the beginning of the most recent season.

This article discusses how CBC lost the rights to HNIC, coming to the conclusion that CBC was not aware of how the broadcasting market was changing and of the competition for the rights to HNIC.  For example, when CBC negotiated with the NHL for the broadcasting rights, they demanded the digital rights as well for the same price, but the NHL requested more money for them.  CBC did not adjust to this and as a result the NHL went to Rogers and BCE to negotiate.  Furthermore, even after the NHL moved on to negotiating with Rogers and BCE, the leaders of CBC did not regard them as serious competitors for HNIC, even though they were giving serious offers.  Overall, this article emphasizes the importance of being able to adapt to a rapidly changing landscape as not doing so can lead to major losses for the company.

Works Cited

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/hockey-night-in-canada-how-cbc-lost-it-all/article21072643/?page=2

http://reputationalcompliance.com/2012/06/20/the-road-to-downfall-the-most-common-unethical-business-practices/

While browsing my classmates’ blogs, I came upon this article by Raza Razi, in which he, while responding to another classmate, Farwah Ahmed’s blog, argues that social responsibility and ethical practices leads to increased profits, while unethical behaviors leads to a poor reputation and as a result reduced profits.

While I agree with this argument in specific situations, he gives an example where two competing companies sell soap and one company, Company Y, uses a cheaper ingredient to save money, but it is “not great for one’s skin and could cause skin irritation”.  He then postulates that this would lead to increased sales initially, but it would decrease over time as people noticed the quality decrease.

I have two issues with this example.  One, I do not believe this necessarily constitutes an ethical issue.  Companies are not socially irresponsible if they do not use the finest ingredients in their products and there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to reduce costs.   In addition, as long as they notify their customers that their product is not suitable for everyone’s skin, they are not necessarily responsible for any harm caused.  Furthermore, even if this is a issue of social responsibility, Company Y still made extra profit through acting unethically, which disagrees with Raza’s main argument.  Overall, while I believe that social responsibility is an important characteristic for companies to hold, it does not always lead to profit, and oftentimes, unethical choices directly lead to increased profits.

Works Cited

Can Ethical Practices Increase Profits? A Response to Farwah Ahmed’s Blog

https://blogs.ubc.ca/farwahahmed/2014/09/10/corporate-social-responsibility-beneficial-or-detrimental/

A visualization of the proposed dam

First Nations groups are united against Site C, BC Hydro’s planned $8 billion hydroelectric dam. Although Site C has been argued to be the province’s “best bet for wrestling with the thorny issues of need and cost” in regards to energy, BC’s many first nations groups believe that the land is rightfully theirs and so oppose the project. The dam would flood 83 kilometers of the Peace River Valley, destroying land used by many First Nations peoples and “[impairing] their rights to fish, hunt and use the area for ceremonial purposes.”

Connecting this to Porters five forces, this represents a barrier to entry. More specifically it is the government deterring entry as the BC government supports the First Nations Groups right to the land, thus impeding BC Hydro’s ability to create the dam and thus gain more influence in the energy market in BC.

Works Cited

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/First+Nation+chiefs+stage+Site+showdown/10215965/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/Site+best+option+energy+Hydro+hasn+proven+need+project+report+updated/9819949/story.html

http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/porter.shtml

Tesla’s Patent Wall before June 12

Currently, Tesla Motors holds over 600 patents, each one granting them exclusive license to profit off of each one or at least the ability to initiate lawsuits against others who use the patent.  However, on June 12, 2014, Tesla announced that they would no longer file lawsuits against anyone who uses their technology. This announcement was based on Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk’s belief that innovation should be encouraged and the best way to fuel innovation is to open up new technologies and ideas to as many people as possible.  More specifically, Musk hopes for increased research and production on electric vehicles as, “electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent” and which increasing the number of electric cars produced in the market. Of course, this change in policy helps Tesla as well. By allowing other companies to use Tesla’s technology, it opens up Tesla’s infrastructure of superchargers to a larger market, making the company more money. Overall, Tesla departed from typical patent policies by opening their patents up to other companies.  This serves as an experiment to see if open-source technology can in fact lead to increased innovation in the electric car market.

Tesla’s Patent Wall after June 12

Works Cited: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=an%2F%22tesla+motors%22&patents=on http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/17/rethinking-patent-enforcement-tesla-did-what/ http://gas2.org/2014/06/23/the-tesla-patent-wall-before-and-after/

The NFL is entering the fifth week of its seventeen-week season and so far the season has been marked by controversy as multiple high-profile players have been arrested for or accused of various cases of domestic violence and child abuse. The list of players involved in the scandals includes players such the Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Rice and the Minnesota Vikings 2012 MVP Adrian Peterson. So far, the league has dealt with the controversy terribly, highlighted by originally suspending Ray Rice only two games after he knocked out his fiancée in a casino elevator. The NFL later made his suspension permanent, but only after a video of the assault was released to the public where it generated significant controversy.

Anheuser-Busch takes a stand against the NFLs treatment of domestic abuse

The negative publicity has yet to translate to significant consequences for the NFL, but it may not last long as multiple companies are decrying the NFL. Multiple companies have pulled their sponsorship of the Vikings and Ravens and have requested that their ads not be shown during the games. Anheuser-Busch, which currently has a $1.2 billion deal with the NFL, released a statement expressing concern. While these demonstrations of frustration may not make a serious monetary impact on the NFL in the long run, ideally they will lead the NFL to take a serious stance against domestic violence and abuse.

Works Cited:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/09/24/nfl-sponsors-are-asking-to-shift-their-ads-away-from-ravens-and-vikings-report-says/

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-sponsors-vikings-ravens-no-ads-092414

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/09/16/anheuser-busch-inbev-releases-statement-on-the-nfl/

http://www.pinoytechnoguide.com/2014/07/blackberry-passport-square-display.html

As you may have heard, Blackberry released its new smartphone, the Passport this past Wednesday.  The Passport attempts to bring Blackberry relevance by emphasizing the differences between it and other comparable smartphones on the market.  The Passports square shape, physical keyboard, and emphasis on email and messaging is made to appeal to what the company calls “power professionals”, people who are constantly working through heavy usage of messaging.  Blackberry is aiming to hopefully win over half of the power professional market; a segment they estimate represents 7 to 8% of the total smartphone market.  They are well on their way towards meeting this mark as the Passport’s initial order sold out within 10 hours of release and over 200,000 phones had been ordered by Friday. The Passport’s release however, has been greatly overshadowed by the release of the iPhone 6 earlier this month.

While the iPhone 6’s domination of headlines has diminished the Passport’s publicity, it may actually work to Blackberry’s advantage as initial reports of the iPhone 6 have highlighted flaws with the phone.  For example, Apple is currently under fire with reports that the iPhone 6 bends while being carried in one’s pockets.  This controversy trended on Twitter under the tags #bendgate and #bendghazi.  Furthermore, Apple’s iOS 8 was released this past week and was quickly pulled as users reported a major software glitch left their phones unusable.  As a result of the negative publicity, Apple is currently in a vulnerable position, which could be taken advantage of by Blackberry.

Works Cited

http://www.cnet.com/news/blackberry-ceo-200000-passports-ordered-since-launch/

http://www.cnet.com/news/blackberry-hopes-love-it-or-hate-it-passport-earns-it-a-second-chance/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/11119846/Apple-pulls-iOS-8-update-after-iPhone-users-complain-of-major-software-glitch.html

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/24/iphone-6-plus-bend-pockets-complain

http://www.foodbeast.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-to-merge-with-tim-hortons-will-create-3rd-largest-fast-food-company-in-the-world/

As you have probably heard, Burger King recently bought Tim Horton’s for ~$12.5 billion and subsequently moved its corporate location to Canada.   Interested in the ramifications of the deal, I read up on the merger and stumbled across this article, in which the US Treasury department decried the move, arguing that BK was merely abusing a loophole in order to pay lower taxes.

This, of course, led to the pondering of some questions of the situation.  Is BK unethical by moving countries?  Is it less ethical if they moved countries solely to pay less?  Why is this considered unethical?

Examining this through the lenses of the two sources we had to examine for class three, and through a reading of this article, I decided the move was not unethical.  BK has the right to make profit, the responsibility to make its shareholders money, and the ability to support the communities around it.  Furthermore, they only pay ~1% less in taxes, or ~$3.4 million less a year.  It wouldn’t make sense for a company to pay $12.5 billion dollars to save $3.4 million, thus BK didn’t organize the deal for the tax reduction.

Overall, I believe the deal was ethical as BK has the right to maximize profits, as long as it does so in a legal manner.

Sources:

http://www.foodbeast.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-to-merge-with-tim-hortons-will-create-3rd-largest-fast-food-company-in-the-world/

http://time.com/3262821/burger-king-tim-hortons/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/corporate-inversion-tax-deals-wrong-loopholes-must-close-treasurys-lew/article20466300/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIRUaLcvPe8

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/reader.action?docID=10187339&page=171