Net Neutrality? Only in Switzerland

I'm a fence sitter when it comes to Net Neutrality. This of course defines the latest battle of technology pundits against the carriers' campaign to realize revenue off the "service" that they provide. The reason I find myself conflicted is because while I agree the Internet should be a common, global network for all to access and can not be regulated by the United States government, I realize (mainly from being in IT myself) that companies providing transport network services need to make money to maintain the very network that I demand free access to.

It's the same battle that IT departments face: do less with more. Users demand more speed and more applications and expect the network to simply handle it. As IT budgets are slashed and qualified technical talent is outsourced, enterprise networks get closer and closer to the edge of unacceptable user community support.

People assume the Internet is an unlimited free tool at their own disposal. This is quite counter-intuitive considering I pay 5 times more for Internet access now than I did with my original dial-up ISP for my 2400 baud modem. However, when people stop receiving a separate bill for an Internet ISP because it's bundled with their cable or phone bill and they have instant online access with cable modems and home wireless routers and the speeds are as fast as when they surf the web at work (on lunch breaks of course), an arrogance of sorts sets in. "The network is there at my beck and call and on a whim I can connect to Google, or download music or shop online or buy and sell at eBay." The thought that "someone" provides the access between my computer and Google or eBay is somewhat transparent and very unclear for people. Everyone has Comcast or Verizon DSL. I'm not positive, but I think it's a safe bet to say that Google isn't connected to the global Internet by Comcast. To the tech savvy, we realize that this means there are other Tier 1 providers that carry my web page requests from the Comcast network through the Internet cloud to the provider that connects Google. These "men in the middle" don't see a dime from me or eBay, yet both eBay and I (through my eBay store front) can make a boat load of cash.

Not to sound like a communist, but I think we're beginning to see the limits of a free market economy. So called "healthy" competition drives prices down and makes consumers happy. But when the price of voice; for example, gets so low that traditional providers can no longer effectively compete, what happens? Do they go out of business like a failed dot com? Who will be interested in buying and maintaining the assets (the network) of a company with a business plan that didn't fail, but rather was undermined by competition from "innovators" who got a free ride?

It may not be realistic to assume all carriers will eventually fail. Indeed, it is up to them to find a profitable business plan. But charging for traffic on their networks can not be eliminated as a possibility.

Take voice for example. As cheap as it is, each call I make is charged to me. I pay a monthly cost for connection and incremental costs per call. Money changes hands between my local and long distance carriers without my knowledge all to sustain dial tone in my house. With new VoIP plans offering unlimited calling for a flat fee, I (and everyone else) is getting unlimited access for a smaller and smaller price to a limited resource that the company selling me the service does not own or control. Kudos to the VoIP services companies that are making a killing in this environment now; the model does not seem to be sustainable.

Jeff Pulver crying that Google should effectively Denial of Service all users attempting to access its site through a BellSouth connection is absurd (VON Magazine, March 2006). The real worry is an Internet wide Denial of Service - not by some script kiddies running a bot network, but by the service providers themselves. After all, it is their network. Imagine a worldwide shutdown of the Internet for a day by key service providers as a demonstration. That would put all of us in our place and show us who really "owns" the Internet.

Analogies

"Undocumented Worker" is to "Illegal Alien" as:

"Undocumented Dining" is to "Leaving without Paying the Check"

I just need to go to the rest room. Leave the check on the table, I'll get it when I come back.

"Undocumented Driver" is to "Driving without a License"

No sir, I wasn't driving without a license or even on a suspended license. I'm just an undocumented driver.

"Undocumented Transaction" is to "Stealing"

I know I don't have a receipt for this item that I took from your store without paying. That's because I made an undocumented transaction.

"Undocumented Withdrawal" is to "Bank Robbery"

Stick 'em up. I'm not robbing your bank, I'm just making an undocumented withdrawal.

"Undocumented Death" is to "Murder"

I realize that you may say I murdered this dead body since I'm not a doctor and there is no death certificate and I'm fleeing the scene. However, don't worry, it's just an undocumented death.

The Adventures of Rich and Vince

Characters courtesy of Planearium

Death to Death Penalty Protesters

I was outraged to hear cheering in the background while a CNN reporter told us that the execution of Michael Morales was indefinitely postponed due to a question of whether lethal injection is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This to defend a degenerate who confessed to the premeditated killing of the beautiful 17 year old Terri Winchell by smacking her with a hammer 23 times, raping her, stabbing her in the heart four times and leaving her half naked body in a vineyard to die.

The question regarding cruel and unusual punishment is a ridiculous ruse to masquerade a liberal agenda to wholly eliminate capital punishment. The argument that killing as a punishment has no place in a civilized society misses the issue that criminals of this magnitude are themselves not civilized and therefore have no place in a civilized society. Extermination, as anyone would exterminate a roach infestation, is the only course of action.

This is certainly not the poster boy for the elimination of capital punishment. Hopefully, my outrage will be paralleled by the fence sitters and bring them to the "right" side.

Animated Response to New Prison Pics

It was only a matter of time before the news media made a hypocrite of itself (yet again).

After originally publishing the somewhat disturbing pictures from Abu Ghraib, a (relatively) small backlash from the Muslim community ensued and shockwaves were sent through the current administration. Great job – you've made the Bush administration looks like the prisoners – caught with their pants down.

Fast forward (or rewind, depending on perspective) to February 2006 when Danish cartoonists publish *cartoons* (not real pictures mind you, just cartoons) of the prophet Mohammed in some questionable scenarios. An Armageddon of sorts is unleashed by the enraged worldwide Muslim community. In an effort to practice "responsible journalism" (read: censorship), most major US media outlets decide not to publish the cartoons.

While the iron is still hot on this story (undoubtedly from the burning embassies worldwide), shocking new Abu Ghraib pictures are found and promptly published as front page news on major US news web sites.

Is there a double standard here? The US media chooses to practice responsible journalism it seems only when the current administration is not involved. However, whenever there is the remotest chance to skewer the sitting president, ethics be damned. Are religious cartoons really more devastating than visceral images of prisoners in all sorts of supposed torturous situations? It seems the US media believes Americans are not able to make that decision. They choose to let the Muslim community make that choice: cartoon image of religious icon over fellow flesh and blood, suffering human beings any day of the week – "and twice on Sundays".

Super Bowl XL Halftime

Now I remember why I hate the Rolling Stones. That was awful. The only thing more exciting than the famous "wardrobe malfunction" would have been a pace-maker malfunction.

The Supreme Conspiracy Theory

I'm watching "The Pelican Brief", a movie from 1993 (that I must say I'm quite fond of) that chronicles the adventures of Darby Shaw (played by Julie Roberts), a law student in Tulane University that writes a theory on the assassinations of two Supreme Court justices.

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

If you haven't seen "The Pelican Brief" and intend to do so, do not read any further!

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

In short, it turns out that Darby's theory for the assassinations of the Supreme Court justices is based on the desire of the "bad guy" to replace the justices when he can predict their replacements. In other words, the "bad guy" was a major campaign contributor to the president (in the movie) and as such, "wants" a favor when it comes to lifetime federal court appointments.

Hmm, I wonder why this somewhat forgotten movie from 1993 becomes the prime time draw 13 years later?