The latest blitz in the ‘net neutrality debate was the recent proposal by Google and Verizon. The paper has sparked an inferno of controversy and a formidable amount of tongue-lashing for the usually popular Google.

The short-recap: Google and Verizon co-published a paper on their view of how ‘net neutrality should work. In summary, wire-line (DSL, Cable, FiOS, dial-up, etc) should remain open and public. Wireless networks should be heavily controlled by the ISP (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc) with and by whatever means they deem necessary. Meanwhile the FCC would be relegated only the power to investigate infringements on this policy (which isn’t a bad thing).

This stands to create two internets, which would be a colossal blunder of epic proportions. The internet, in part, works so well because it is a homogenous mix of hardware and software that all play together in one realm. Changing the rules because your packets have to suddenly travel over a different medium (from wired to wireless) is a bottomless pit of fail just waiting to happen. I think Jeff Jarvis’ internet/schminternet post is the clearest on this matter.

The elephant in the corner
The net neutrality debate was mostly sparked by bandwidth concerns – at least that’s the big excuse. With all the new information and formats being streamed – high-def video and bit torrent being the main culprits, ISPs are crying foul that they can’t keep up with things. Google, and many savvy engineers have pointed out that QoS (Quality of Service) controls on a network isn’t the real answer here (QoS can be used to delay some packets and prioritize others). Building a more robust infrastructure is the solution.

And this is why this Google-Verizon proposal is such crap. They’ve completely jumped the shark, ignoring the answer to the question they’re proposing – which is all the more frustrating since Google already answered it years ago. Furthermore, wireless access has, for the longest time,  been THE proposal for delivering broadband to rural and remote areas of the country. This makes the idea of wireless being a separate internet with its own rules even more unrealistic.

Build out a better infrastructure.

Throttling bandwidth, making special rules for wireless because the networks in SOME locations are bogged down is inanely short-sighted – and yet this is exactly the core of the Google-Verizon proposal.

What we need is a juggernaut like Google to spearhead ideas and implementations on improving existing broadband infrastructure and how to build out new. In theory, they were pushing in that direction when Google offered to build out gigabit connections in a few select towns.

To put things in perspective 10 years ago most people were on dial-up. When DSL hit the mainstream a few years later bandwidth increased by a magnitude. Cable and Fios a few years later have once again increased bandwidth by another magnitude. The same trend is happening in wireless. Three years ago we had Edge. A year and a half later there are robust 3G networks running substantially faster. Right now 4G and LTE is being rolled out which is again substantially faster than 3G. The pace of innovation – the ability to deliver content faster is there. It just needs to be built out.

We don’t need ridiculous restrictions, we need extraordinary vision of how to expediate the expansion of wired and wireless broadband access in the US. Google was the main vehicle for this and now they’ve dropped the ball in a big way. We can only hope that all the ridicule and vitriol that is being tossed Google’s way will wake them up to their potential for doing good when we, as consumers of the internet, need it most.

For in-depth analysis be sure to check the following articles:
arsTechnica http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/google-net-neutrality-flip-flop-in-spirit-of-compromise.ars
Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/08/10/internet-schminternet/
GigaOm http://gigaom.com/2010/08/12/googles-lame-defense-of-its-net-neutrality-pact/
EFF http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality

Brian Lam of Gizmodo (@blam) recently wrote an article entitled Google Would Remind My Grandpa of the Arrogant White Invaders.

It’s his take on the Google vs. China debate and it sent my BS sensors spiraling. I think I understand what he was trying to convey, that under the guise of doing something just and good, Google is just as misguided as China, if not moreso.

I off-offhandedly commented on Twitter to Will Smith that Brian fell prey to enough logical fallacies in his article to short out my logical fallacy detector. Brian subsequently called me on that supposition. So here I am defending my criticism. Brian, I hope you appreciate this because it’s time not spent blowing people up in Battlefield 2: Bad Company. After being a code monkey all day, I need that sweet, sweet release…

Logical Fallacies are the corner stone of critical thought. They are the scalpel by which one takes apart an opponent’s thoughts piece by piece. It’s also, in my book at least, the most fair, neutral, and rational way of carrying on a debate as it keeps everybody as close to honest as you are going to get. After all people have passions, and those passions screw with rational debate.

Brian’s opening salvo:

Days after Google moved from China, Sergey Brin is pushing the US to fight censorship there. But the West has a history of forcing moral and economic standards onto foreigners. This sort of thinking isn’t good—it’s how wars start.

OK. Sounds good. It’s a nice opening, punchy, with the overshadowing threat of pain, suffering and death. I say it’s a false dichotomy with a dash of non sequitur.

The reader is presented with two options. Maintain peace and status quo, or question the establishment’s laws and provoke war, the false dichotomy. We see citizens question laws and censorship around the world on a daily basis without the looming threat of violence. The current campaign for libel reform in the UK is a fantastic example of many countries having a vested interest in another country changing their laws for the betterment of not only its citizens in the UK, but also those outside of the UK.

The West, which I am going to assume stands for the United States in this particular instance has a 200+ year history of pushing its moral and economic standards on those around them. It has a vested interested in doing so. However, that makes it a mere child next to most European countries that have done such for centuries beforehand. A mere newcomer at the game you could say. We could jump two thousand years back to see the real masters at it, Rome.

Peering back through time history teaches us that every country that COULD push its moral and economic standards on others did such. It’s what countries in ‘normal mode’ do. It’s how they survive. You may find, for a brief period, countries that do not push their agenda on others. This may be due to times of unusual quiet, peace, and plentiful resources. Sooner or later, history points out that those countries either have to reverse that trend or get eaten by another country. It’s like watching the nature channel and having to learn how to stomach that at some point the cute seal pup is going to be dinner for the polar bear. This is the world of ‘shit happens’. That’s the non sequitur.

Brian goes on to say:

Censorship—a dirty word to netizens of the free world! But we have censorship and propaganda of our own to preserve corporate interests. I’m not sure any of us should be applauding Google’s stance.

This is classic Tu Quoque. I may have the best fitness advise in the world. I may also be obese. My bulging gut does not invalidate the priceless and accurate fitness advise I have to offer. Because there are forms of censorship in the US, censorship that Google adheres to, it in no way invalidates their decision to not support China’s levels of censorship. On the other hand, it may make them a hypocrite – which can weaken a moral stance, but then one has to wade into the factors of how and why Google chooses to censor in one country but not another.

Australia routinely bans video games and movies with controversial content. In the US, Kiddie porn lands you in legal trouble here as does any public threat of violence against others. And did you know that in 2004, Google and Yahoo decided to not advertise online gambling sites, even though it was not illegal? And this blogger compares the UK Digital Economy Bill to China’s net censorship laws, point by point. Especially those sections introduced by the local recording industry reps.

Brian is creating a false continuum by blurring the lines on types of censorship, that removing the ability to research human rights atrocities a country has visited upon its own citizens is somehow equal to child porn. One deals with fact (Tiananmen square, Falun Gong), the other with trying to stem an industry of mental and biological destructiveness (child porn). Then we fall back into Tu Quoque, with Brian reasoning that since Google voluntarily censors gambling they should just STFU and GBTW when it comes to China. I would side with Brain that it was a foolish and puzzling move to censor gambling. I would venture a guess it was Google choosing not to pick a fight with the US government at that particular time in order to give themselves leverage in another area later. Again, that really has jack to do with what is going on over in China.

Ultimately it comes down to  Google’s job as a corporation – to play the system to their advantage, to drive profits which in turn shore up stock prices for their shareholders. This is the ‘shit happens’ world of corporations. What seems to make Google a little bit different is that Sergey Brin got a bellyful, and flying in the face of what corporations are supposed to do, has turned the ship around. I’d wager Brin went in with a small romantic notion of being able to change the moral and economic standards by empowering China’s citizens with knowledge – but upon endangering those dissidents that China hunts so furiously by allowing Google to be put into a situation where its databases could be violated - Brin has thought better of it all.

How often do we hear of a corporation giving up current profits and potential profits in the corporate world? I can’t think of one instance, ever. This is why Google is being lauded – as a leader to set an example for other corporations that it is possible to say, ‘no’.

I suppose I fear Google for the same reason many Americans fear China. It’s not what they’re doing to us today, but what power they might have over us tomorrow if left unchecked. Not to my body, as with corporal punishment in China, which the US thankfully protects me from in least in part. But to my mind, which will be filled with advertising slogans about things that I do not want to buy, and do not want to think about, and do not want to help promote and with the idea that if I do not have these things, I will be a less happy person. This is seriously dangerous. (I’d like to take this moment to thank the sponsors of this site!)

Here we have the appeal to final consequences. Google’s ploy of ‘no censorship’ is really just a smokescreen so people don’t see the advertising juggernaut that will soon be playing McDonald’s slogans on your eyelids. Brian fails to take into account that one does not have to read ads. For the internet there is adblock. For the TV, if you still watch it, you can turn it off, leave the room, read a book, or fast forward through it. The radio? Turn down the volume. So I’m left with the though of, “Ads? This is the big boogeyman? Are you serious?”

This whole argument is a strawman, setting Google up as the imperialist invader and then knocking them down. Google never invaded China. They never forced their product on China. They never endangered China’s citizens until China forced their way into Google’s servers.

Brian closes with:

Nothing’s free, and no corporation or country has ever wielded a great deal of power without committing evil. Maybe those are things both China and Google could both stand to learn.

Indeed. However, the difference here is one company campaigns to get as much knowledge into the hands of citizens as possible – with which people can analyze situations with as many facts as possible – to critically think over the matters of their governance. Google will make mistakes and stumbles in their efforts to reach that goal.

In staunch opposition is that government that hides behind platitudes of protecting its citizens while censoring any history diametrically opposed to its creed, imprisoning those that speak out, and relentlessly hunting down dissenters by any means necessary, including international espionage and cyber attacks.

Remind me how one can reconcile those two levels of ‘evil’?

To hear the lamentation of Verizon, Comcast, and every other worhtless ISP that has dragged its sorry ass in rolling out decent broadband across America.

As reported by Engadget,

today the company (Google) announced that it’s getting in the game for real with the launch of a fiber-based ISP service that’ll offer 1Gbps speeds at “competitive prices” to select markets.

I sincerely hope this scares the living hell out of ISPs across the land and forces them into action. Broadband in this country is scattered and pitiful. Prices are ridiculous, and choices are either between two evils or non-existent.

I hope Google hits them like the fist of an angry god.

If you haven’t heard, Google has come around in a big way and has announced they will stop censoring search results originating in China.

This is a ballsy move on their part as it could mean Google being booted out of the country physically and… internetedly???

China represents over a billion potential customers. That’s a lot of money (hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars) in search results. It’s a move few other companies have dared to do.

There’s a bigger picture here – Google can afford to stop doing business with China. It risks losing a competitive edge, but at the same time this opens up the option for other companies to stop kowtowing to China’s oppressive censorship demands by refusing to do business as well.

Rare is the opportunity to uncross a line and put the genie back in the bottle. Google has given many business the chance to willingly stop supporting China in this matter and not lose comparable market share. If that’s not keep true to Google’s “Do no evil” mantra, I don’t know what is!

(This starts off odd, but stick with me, it ends well)

When I embarked on rebooting my career I knew I’d be leaving behind over 15 years of experience. That’s a lot of information and knowledge to leave behind as a frightening chunk just wasn’t relevant to being a programmer. I had to come up with a way to recapture a huge reservoir of knowledge so I’d be worth something more than a shiny, new college degree. I began listening to tech podcasts. What started out as a few hours here and there grew to 11 podcasts consisting of over 20 hours of audio a week (hurray for a long commute). Into that mix I tossed a dozen or so tech/science websites I read per day and three tech/science magazines.

That’s what it takes to stay informed in an incredibly fast-paced industry – and I say its been worth the effort.

One thing I’ve noticed over the past three years is the quickening convergence of tech into everyday life. It’s radically altering how people interact, more so now than ever before. For example, most everyone I know is on Facebook. A large chunk of those people are checking it and updating it not only several times a day – but several times an hour. That’s a radical change in social behavior, especially when you frame it against those same people basically going from a ‘null’ interaction before to what now amounts to a constant awareness of what their connections are up to. Twitter, which was once the playground of only the techiest of geeks is now a major communication device for everyone from movie stars to protesters in Iran.

One of the podcasts I listen to, This Week In Google (TWIG) went on a bit of a tangent this week. Instead of burrowing down into the detail of cloud computing and the latest Google services, they took a top-down look at where things like social networking, information, privacy, and tech was headed. In all, it was a little bit shocking and exciting, even for someone who listens to this stuff on a daily basis.

The short take on it is we are at a major turning point in how society make use of technology – a radical departure from even a year ago. Moreover this isn’t the technophiles and geeks of society – this is the everyday Joe being able to access and process information at a level unknown to them previously.

The podcast was an interesting game of connect-the-dots of things Google has been up to that, if left unfettered by government action, could crush existing paradigms like Telcos (AT&T, Verizon), Cable (Comcast), and even print media.

This possibility puts the actions of the Swedish government, recently saying that broadband access was now a basic human right, into a new light. Think about it like this: with internet access you can make free phone calls, post job resumes to thousands of employers at once, access information about anything and everything including strangers you see on the street, at a party, or at work, start a company and make a living, store your own data, access entertainment, socially connect and interact with family and friends.

Without internet access – and without the outmoded business models of the existing telcos, cable companies, printing industry, and even the United States Postal Service you are cut-off. Now you might be saying to yourself, “But that can’t happen,” but it can, and it could happen in the span of a few months.

The concept stands to send a few people into panic. It’s certainly a lot of rapid change – and that is inherently scary to many people.

That’s why it’s worth your time to check out this episode of TWIG. As G.I. Joe would say, “Knowing is half the battle!” Understanding just how on the cusp we are of a techno-revolution, of the massive lobbying battle that will no doubt take place by the telcos, cable companies and others to stop it (because they want to keep making money at the expense of progress) – knowing how to land on both feet and take advantage of the resources that are getting ready to be tossed our way is a good thing.

You can download TWIG episode  21  for your mp3 player or listen to it here. There will be a full video of it on YouTube in a few more days, I suspect (only episode 20 is up right now) Video now linked below.

This is some seriously wild shit and you owe it to yourself to check it out! We’re not talking about Disney’s vision of the future 50 years from now. This is awesomeness happening now.

Somebody took Google maps and created a zombie simulation. You control all the details including the number of zombies, civilians, number of people armed, their accuracy rate, and more. Plus it is set in D.C. so it smacks of home.

Run the sim and watch all the healthy green people run for it as the little red zombies slowly consume the brains of the living. It’s like a horror-themed ant farm!

Do you think there is anything that would attract them to Capital Hill?