Telstra Corporation is an Australian Telecom. It is paying a fine of 18.5 million dollars for denying interconnection between its facilities and those of other companies. Telstra admitted the breach of its legal obligations. The Telecommunications Act, an Australian law designed to prevent just such violations, was the law broken in this case.
Listen to this blogger explain how Telstra caps You Tube at a certain level of band width. He also explains how he is trapped into Telstra’s service and can’t escape.
Guess what? Companies not only want to censor what you can see or slow down things they don’t like, they also want to put the screws to their competitors.
You would think listening to the debate in the United States, that this is all about whether there is enough band width or if we are going to let the engine of “free market” capitalism make this all so cheap we can pay our internet bills with pocket change. This case might give you a different perspective. It would appear given the opportunity that companies would discriminate against each other. Do I have to tell you what that means for your internet service? Sometimes it would be fast, sometimes it would be unaccountably slow and other times, you wouldn’t see anything at all. Is the phrase, internet service provider, an oxymoron?
The way I see it you could make a lot more money denying service. You’d blame bandwidth problems, over regulation, and anybody else that the uninformed might believe responsible.
Ethical? Lord, no!
What do you think this is, some grade school playground? This is the world of American (and Australian) business.
Religious scruples? Golden rule? That shalt not steal? Thou shalt not bear false witness? etc? Not a chance. Religion does not figure into this kind of thinking.
How about philosophy? Kant and the Categorical Imperative? You know, you must do right under every circumstance? I guess we aren’t doing that. What about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism? Are these business practices producing the best results regardless of their initial rightness? Well, if you only consider your profit, yes. But ole John Stuart probably wouldn’t agree with you.
Corporate Social Responsibility? Caste the peasants some crumbs? Well maybe, some in the company may be church goers, you know, a place to make business connections, and they might throw something extra in the offering plate.
You might say, “James, you are just too cynical and you have unrealistic expectations, after all the business world has been freed from old philosophies, over restrictive religions, and public expectations. We live in a new era of one rule, if it doesn’t make money it is wrong, if it does make money it is right. See how simple it is, James? Get on the wagon! You know if you gave up all this moral crap, and wrote the right kind of stuff there could be a future for you. No more teaching college students, no more tapping out your pitiful thoughts at night. Talk to the right people. Play the right games. There’s money to be had. There is nothing in the world that makes a businessman feel better than a little godlike praise. After all, don’t they deserve it? These individuals drive the economy. They make the world a better place. After all, wasn’t the United States created to enable business to make money more freely? Forget about all that liberty crap. You have to make the sale. You have to get some stupid schmuck to get out there with a gun and make the world safe for profit. Relax, James, you need some therapy. Anger and outrage can get you down. You could develop heart problems or at the very least hypertension. Relax, slow down. You know, there are some web sites where they show examples of business behaving well. Write about them! You’ll feel all better!”
No, I won’t.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
Right on, James, write on!
I’ve just been reading an interesting article from Psychologies magazine, July 2010, which highlights that mental illness is peculiarly endemic to ‘selfish capitalist countries’ – unselfish capitalist countries (you’ll need to read the article!) suffer half as much mental illness, and developing countries such as Philippines, etc… have very little mental illness as well. Similarly, suicide rates particularly of professional men, will reveal a lot about our society!
Another debate that’s been raging here in Australia the past few days/weeks, and ties into your discussion about business ethics, is the issue of the rate of migration into our country. Whilst many people are open to multi-culturalism and humanitarian migration, it completely astonishes me how many ‘leaders’ (political and business/economic) can look you straight in the face and argue that the only way our society will survive is if we continue to achieve economic growth of 4-5% per annum, indefinitely. Obviously, this logic is fundamentally flawed on numerous fronts: there must, of course, come a time when this planet will groan under the punishment of 11+ billion people trying to co-exist here; and this argument is based purely on economic analysis to ensure we keep earning money at such a rate as to support our western lifestyles, with absolutely zero consideration of societal effects!
Oh, that us human beings would wake up and acknowledge that our life on this earth is about so much more than money in the bank account, and possessions we can purchase!!
LikeLike
Oliver James, author of Affluenza: How to Be Successful and Stay Sane (2007) and The Selfish Capitalist (2008) ‘asserts that there is a correlation between the increasing nature of affluenza and the resulting increase in material inequality: the more unequal a society, the greater the unhappiness of its citizens’ and that ‘Selfish Capitalism is a particularly aggressive form of capitalism found predominantly in English speaking nations – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. James argues that in these countries, around 23% of the population has suffered from some form of mental illness such as depression or anxiety in the last 12 months compared to an average of 11.5% of German, Italian, French, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch people who, James argues, live under a system of social or unselfish capitalism.’ He has been criticized for including Japan, which has a high suicide rate, as an unselfish capitalist state.
Besides the points you make, James, on ethics, there is sound scientific evidence to show that avarice is, indeed, a deadly sin.
LikeLike
Thanks, as always, you present an argument few would have thought of. I would like to post your comment as a separate blog entry. Okay? jp
LikeLike
Okay.
LikeLike
Mr. Brookes, I enjoy praise but in this case it is far more flattering to receive from a writer whose blog I enjoy. If you would ever like to post something on my blog, I would be pleased to put it up and you can be confident no one will have the slightest doubt that it is your work. (I am fanatical about giving people full credit. It does me far more honor that someone would like to have something on my blog than any claim to false author ship could do.)
I’d like to put your comments up as a separate blog post. Is that okay? (I’m going to ask Gary too. Should he accept, you and he will have separate blog entries.)
Once again, thank you!
Your praise is something I will remember for a long time. jp
LikeLike
James, by all means – the respect is mutual!
LikeLike