Back in April of this year, Comcast won a battle in court against the FCC which, according to the New York Times, “wanted to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network.” In this article journalist Edward Wyatt explains that “regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law” so they had no choice but to rule in favor of Comcast, allowing ISPs to “block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.”

Google and telecom giant Verizon came together to draft some language designed to “protect and promote the openness of the internet” so that Internet service companies could continue to effectively manage broadband service and the costs associated with its continued development without infringing on end-user access. While they may be sharing the same “bench,” Google and Verizon are still not exactly sitting next to one another. According to Google, “Verizon supports openness across its networks” but maintains “there is no evidence of a problem today — especially for wireless — and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally.” Google, on the other hand, “supports light touch regulation” designed to act as “safeguards … needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online.”

Here’s where my frustration comes in. The so-called “free market,” which trusted “big business” to be responsible and reap the rewards of fair play, produced a level of criminality that surprised even the most pessimistic, conspiracy-theory minded. The Internet is yet another economic channel open to exploitation. The libertarian in me wants less regulation, less government involvement. But companies are competitive by nature and tempted by any loophole they can find to gain an edge, oftentimes without consideration for the ramifications. So what’s the answer? Do we need the government to step in here too? Is that really the best solution? Are those who run big business truly incapable of fair play without being policed by the government? I don’t know. I prefer to think that the conversation between Google and Verizon is a unifying act that will protect the principles of net neutrality without the need for government intervention.  What are your thoughts?

The ET Solar Group, a solar power product manufacturer and service provider based in Nanjing, won the bid to supply the solar modules to be installed on two rooftops and two carport structures at the Camden Street School in Newark, NJ.  Local solar energy developers and installers are selecting Chinese manufacturers over US competitors purely on price in order to win the big contracts out for bid in New Jersey. According to a Bloomberg News article, China is slashing prices and seeking to dominate solar energy, having lowered prices on solar modules by over 50% in the last two years.

Chinese pricing strategy is making it possible for renewable electricity to be charged at the same prices as conventional power, something referred to as grid parity, by the year 2013 (see Bloomberg article). It seems that in order for US photovoltaic manufacturers to get back into the game, they are going to have to build larger plants to compete with the production capabilities of the Chinese.

What are your thoughts? How can we keep the US competitive so that manufacturing remains here and is not shipped overseas?

Also – we really hope that you don’t see this until Monday, because you should not be working today

When I let him know what we did (website and application design and development, marketing, etc.) his face sort of fell.  He said:  “Oh…so do we.”  So that’s awkward.  At least at first.  Then he says: “how’s business?”  Well, I couldn’t say: “Good enough that we are not going door to door in office buildings!” So instead I introduced him to my boss.  They had a more detailed conversation than I would have and ended up finding out that there were instances where one company focused on an area in the general online space that the other did not.

So they left off “trading numbers” and the man left.  Why did I tell this story?  Well, to be honest, because it raised a lot of questions for me.

• When CAN your competitor be your partner?
• How would you ever know that if you don’t talk to them?
• Is it a viable business opportunity to see exactly what your competitors do that you do not (and vice versa)?

Having no idea if the encounter today is going to result in anything down the line, the questions still remain.  If you get a call from a customer and you cannot do what they need, is it worth it to be able to send them to someone you know can?  I know the first order of business is to see if you have something that will accomplish customer’s goal and sell him that.  but if you really just can’t sell them anything, do you want to still be able to help them?

My answer to that is yes.  What’s yours?