Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A lot of talk has been taking place recently over an issue of Net Neutrality. Typically, you'll hear this term slung around in accusatory tone from one ISP to a larger, or from an advocacy group against the super-giants, Verizon and Google to name a few. It's a debate that, at it's core, echos the tradition in American spirit that empowers the "little guy" in his never-ending fight against the tyrannical "big guy."

Ok, that may be an oversimplification, but if you read from the advocate's perspective, that's the tale you'll likely hear. Of course, from the other side of the table, the non-regulated, invisible hand, free market capitalist flag is flying high. So which is it? Tyrants vs Serfs? Socialists vs Capitalists? I'm torn... I'm a capitalist, and a "little guy," where do I fall?

To understand Net Neutrality, you must first understand how the Internet works... no, not the technical side of it, the commercial side. The side the makes (and costs) money. You see, the Internet is not some public infrastructure, owned and provided by the Government to the People as a tenet of citizenship and utility for daily life. It's a product, developed at a cost, and provided for a fee.

The question, then, is whether these intrepid companies who have built, acquired, or otherwise come to own (hence: control) said infrastructure at their own expense have the right to then control and prioritize, or even censor, the traffic which it carries. Depending on your bias, you may be quick to jump to a seemingly obvious conclusion. The independent spirit says, "yes, it's theirs, they can do as they wish." But the guardian of rights begins to question, "who gets left out, and why?"

Opponents of Net Neutrality argue from a posture of territorial rights. The ISP's and telecom companies who own the assets which power this beast we call the Internet certainly should have rights to control it's use. In order to ensure the profit that they absolutely require in order to sustain this infrastructure we've come to know, love, and depend on, they need some level of control.

What control would they place, you may ask? Well, de-prioritizing certain networks or other providers, for starters--those who might be competitors. Or, it's conceivable (and has even been accused) that certain content--websites, videos, ads, etc.--which promote the competition or any cause contrary to the profit-seeking purposes of the ISP. This begins to cross into censorship, control of information, and (ironically) a threat to the notion of free market and free speech.

Enter the opposing side. Now you see how the debate swirls. What, if any, control imposed by such infrastructure-backing corporations would be too much? Where is the line? How "neutral" do we need to be in order to be "fair?" And, of course, the ultimate question is: who, then should decide and enforce such a set of rules?

As I've said, I'm torn. I can argue fervently in either camp. What do you think?

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Google, Internet, ISP, Net Neutrality, Telecommunication, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 7:58 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, March 30, 2010
At the risk of sounding politically charged, I think it's fair to ask: to what degree should the FCC regulate broadband? We're in a free market society, right? (actually, not exactly, but the principals are employed) So, why not let the market create demand for broadband and the enterprising businesses create solutions to supply it?

Just so you know, I didn't wake up this morning with a political axe to grind. Google and Verizon opened this can of worms for us early this week. In a joint article, the two internet moguls urged the FCC to reconsider their regulation of the Internet. While they don't seem to be opposed to government incentives for creating new broadband networks, the two companies (and many others like them) are hesitant to greet new regulations and government involvement with open arms.

While the FCC's broadband plan is generally viewed as a good idea, some telecom companies are beginning to wonder about the details. The FCC plans to reclassify ISP's, making their services easier to regulate. And, to justify these fears, the FCC came under scrutiny recently for overstepping it's authority interjecting terms into a recent merger of two t-com companies.

So, how much is too much? We already know that the U.S. lags painfully behind many other nations in the speed and ubiquity of it's broadband network. But why not let the profit-driven providers like Verizon and AT&T make the decision to bring broadband up to par? Or, a capitalist may ask: is there demand for broadband in the underserved areas?

Labels: ATT, Broadband Plan, FCC, Google, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 5:11 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, March 3, 2010
As a long-time Blogger.com user, I was definitely disappointed to learn that Blogger's Publish via FTP option was going to be retired. But, being in the technology industry myself, I can understand when antiquated systems must be retired. What I did not expect--but perhaps should have--was the amazing backlash from users.

The general sentiment is that of entitlement. While I agree it is frustrating, and even a bit mis-handled on Google's part, I don't feel any sense of abandonment. Comments are ablaze on Google's blog, and all over the blogosphere for that matter. FTP users are in an uproar, proving decidedly the power of a loud minority (According to Google, FTP users make up less than 5% of their user base... the reason for depreciating this feature).

The blog you're reading right now is indeed published with Blogger, and using their FTP service. So, in the perpetual delay of Blogger's promised migration tool, how have we moved forward? We used a free tool provided by PostTwo.com which seamlessly migrates Blogger FTP publishing into the blogspot.com hosting without requiring CNAME and A-record editing (which I, and many blog authors, do not have access to).

The lesson here is this: (to the vendors) don't under-estimate the effect that alienating even a small minority in your customer-base might have. But, (to the customers) if it's a free service, you get what you pay for.

Labels: Blogger FTP, Google

posted by Nick Carter at 2:07 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, February 10, 2010
This morning, Google announced (via the Google Blog) the soon-to-come availability of their experimental fiber-optic broadband network.

"We're planning to build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the United States."

It seems Google has gotten involved with the FCC's urge for feedback on the Broadband Plan. They open their post with future-looking and hopeful statements about a broadband world that could be. But, many are asking today: are their intentions so benign?

It's no surprise that other broadband providers could be wondering: is this the start of a new competitor in the market? And, if it is, what a competitor they would be. With access to the vast majority of internet users (via their overwhelmingly popular search engine) they could capture the internet world with their message rather quickly.

But, I'm not so sure there is much more to their efforts than just what they say. Google, ever the innovator, wants to move broadband forward. Their blog describes their intent as nearly academic--research, investigation, and trying new ideas. A few years ago, the company introduced wireless broadband to their home town at no charge for the same mission. That venture hasn't been parlayed into anything greater. Not to mention, it's not very much like Google to enter a market inconspicuously (note: their entry into the cell phone market).

So, I for one applaud Google. They invest their own cash into infrastructure and toe-dipping into a market for the purposes of greater good, it would appear--advancing broadband access, improving technologies, and getting our nation back on par with the rest of the world.

Labels: Broadband, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Google

posted by Nick Carter at 9:49 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Friday, January 1, 2010
Last week, the futuristic science-fiction film Avatar and Pandora's data network inspired me to dream of a far-off future broadband network on earth. This week, my feet are planted more firmly on the ground. As a new year and a new decade dawns, what can we expect from wireless in the near future.

Top 5 Wireless Broadband Developments to Anticipate in 2010:

1. iPhone Tethering. As an avid iPhone user, I have resisted the last several OS updates for fear that they will shut down the slight modifications I've made to enable tethering (the very connection I am using to post this article). In order to keep up with competition (i.e. droid), they'll have to open this feature to their users.
2. 4G rollouts made available to most major metro areas. Whereas now its still a rare find and something most people don't even know about, 4G will be the talk of techno-toys next Christmas season.
3. FCC's Broadband Plan. They're due to present the plan to Congress this year, which means we could start to see the new policies and procedures in place before the end of 2010.
   
4. The Verizon/Google Home Internet Package. The droid/VZW pair-up is just the beginning. With Google's ubiquitous exposure to the consumer today, and Verizon's extensive network, look for the pair to release a home internet package to rival the Cable providers and--of course--"The" phone company.
5. 3G Enabled Vehicles. Pair this with the prospect of VOIP over wireless networks and you've got the ability for your home phone and internet to follow you wherever you go.
   

Now, I must offer the disclaimer that these are merely light-hearted and hopeful predictions based on my own personal observation. I don't have an insider track to Google's product release, and I'm not offering competitive investment advice. Just some fun, and hopefully inspiring, predictions on this New Year's Day!

Happy New Year!

Labels: FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Google, New Year, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 7:19 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments