AIG Renaming Insurance Operations (?!)

The "AIG" brand name has apparently become too tainted over the past few months to appeal to customers. So yesterday, at the AIG headquarters in New York, the sign that proudly displayed the AIG logo is now blank. (Image: MSNBC) As most of my devoted readers would know, AIG has caused quite a bit of trouble in recent weeks. Whether dishing out bonuses to no-longer-serving executives or having the pleasure of being associated with Rush Limbaugh, AIG has stayed in the news. So, what i pseudo s this-publicly-owned company going to be called?

Well, since "AIG" is so tainted, they decided to call the new company AIU Holdings, LLC. Yes, AIG's major insurance division is now called AIU: American International Underwriters. Much better; problem solved. To be clear, AIG still exists as a parent company, but the property/casualty insurance division -- that covers items such as car, business, and home insurance -- is now AIU Holdings, LLC.

Who would ever associate AIU with AIG though? AIU sounds like a very different company. Not to mention how much better it is to say AIU than AIG. Sarcasm aside (that was sarcasm), what exactly is AIG trying to accomplish? Well, actually it may be simpler than it seems. As mentioned in the MSNBC report, AIU will eventually have its own initial public offering. This means that AIU will get to sell stock to the market and receive its own cash infusion. Not too shabby.

Here's MSNBC's television report on the renaming of AIG's major division:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is going to be an interesting week...
Read more...

U.S. Policies That Matter to Everyone: Net Neutrality

An ongoing debate for lawmakers everywhere around the world is whether or not they can regulate their citizens' activities on the web. There is not only the question of how, but also whether it is anyone's place to regulate the global network. (Image: New York Times) Information obtained by the Wall Street Journal indicates that President Barack Obama plans to appoint Julius Genachowski to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is critical in setting the agenda for media regulation; its decisions can influence the global media landscape due to the number of American power-player corporations that it monitors.

Genachowski, Obama's technology adviser, has been a vocal supporter of Net Neutrality and other progressive regulation choices. As I explained in my introduction, Net Neutrality is an extremely important issue that could have big effects on current and future Internet use. Essentially, Net Neutrality is trying to keep the Internet free of regulation. Regulating the Internet could take several forms, which you can investigate in depth if it interests you; but, here are some highlights:

• Increased Digital Copy Protection


• Creating Solidified Standards


• Limitations on Free Speech

Digital Rights Management (DRM) of any kind typically has side-effects that hinder the freedom of paying customers. Copy protection may be a worthy cause, but regulation of the Internet to embed copy protection into every aspect of what we do could be seriously limiting and also invade privacy. Likewise, creating solidified standards through regulation may help developers work with a more reliable system, but limits the collaborative evolution that has propelled the Internet forward.

The threat to free-speech is the most clear threat from governments destroying net neutrality. Existing statues that allow censorship by service providers could apply to the Internet if regulations are placed on it. This means that if Rogers, Bell, Comcast or whoever your service provider is, doesn't like what you're saying, they could potentially use existing laws to censor you. This depends on the Internet being defined into regulations, which could either protect free speech or limit it.

The point is, as soon as regulations on the Internet begin to occur in major countries like the United States, it would be a slippery slope toward a highly-regulated experience. The Internet is often viewed as a democratic medium; whether you agree with that sentiment or not, regulating the Internet will eliminate any hope left for it.
Read more...