Internet Neutrality

In all the hubub surrounding Tuesday night's presidential debate and the continuing election campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, I came across this article earlier today that I think merits mentioning. Popular Mechanics undertook a report to look into how the two candidates view the neutrality of the internet. The differences couldn't be more clear. As the article states, "McCain believes in a lightly regulated Internet, while Obama believes in more government involvement," while at the same time, each candidates campaign "can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication." The issues at stake revolve around the changing of the method of connection to the internet, from the phone-line based dial up services of the 1990's to a more cable/wireless/bluetooth/3G network society. With all these different possibilities, there is the possibility for a variety of different opinions.

When you look at both of the candidate's positions, it is not actually the data flow that they are interested in, rather the regulation over ISP's and internet access. These both follow their respective political philosophies, where Obama believes it is the government's mission to provide free and available internet, especially broadband, to communities where it is lacking, while McCain sides with the free market approach, with the private market promoting broadband access. What they can agree on, though, is that the internet access should be universal to all Americans.

With this, I agree completely. For better or worse, there is no more convenient, easy, and generally reliable source of information in such a quick fashion. Gone are the days when students use encyclopedias and other reference works to find books and articles for their research, now most subjects are a quick Wikipedia or Google search away. Access to information is key in having a well informed, well educated, and free society, and of all methods for information conveyance, the internet is the most universal, and if left unregulated for the most part, unbiased source for information. That's not to say that there is bias on the internet, as their certainly is; however it is easy enough for one to find opposing viewpoints of view, and with little effort to form their own opinions of the facts. Thus, while I think that given the current economic situation we'll have to wait and see how feasible either candidate's plan is, they are both pointed in the right direction in this aspect

After an anonomous reporter falsely reported on iReport (report since removed) that Apple CEO Steve Jobs had suffered a serious heart attack, Apple's stock plunged over 10%, and the SEC has gotten involved. This just goes to show the shaky state the markets are in now, where an unsubstantiated report on an unaccredited reporting service is taken at such a value to impact the stocks of a major company. Furthermore, the involvement of the SEC hints that the feds are taking this seriously. Which they should. This goes to prove the very insecurity of our markets. If one man could (intentionally) make such a false report, there is no reason to believe that someone intent of causing actual harm could post a report that on the surface looked believable such that it could have the same, if not worse, repercussions. Thankfully though, this incident will hopefully put a dent into unsubstantiated citizen journalism. Now, there is nothing wrong with legitimate reporting by the people, so long as the reports are documented by credible sources, be they individuals, pictures (which with the increasing propagation of programs like Photoshop begin to leave themselves open to question), video, or cross-references with professional news services.

At the same time, however, the markets hopefully have learned a lesson from this; namely, not to take all news at face value. I hope that those people who were convinced to sell are feeling rather foolish after determining that what they based their choice on was a hoax. This whole business of trading as a result of political action or supposed corporate tragedies is, I think, getting the entire stock market away from the purpose it was conceived. Stocks should be bought and sold based upon the direction a business is headed, and the potential one sees for success in it. Too often today, people are investing simply because they can, and not really looking into what they are investing in or why they are making that investment. But, as I wrote about before, with the rise in the access of the market to more and more people due to the internet and technology, such occurences are bound to happen.

Politics and the iPhone

This post was meant to go up yesterday, however like many of the politically minded people in America, I got caught up in the hubbub during and after the VP debates.
Yesterday the BBC posted an article of particular interest to this year's election; the Obama campaign has yet again taken the technology forefront, this time with the iPhone. Since Apple allowed for third party applications over the summer, the Obama campaign developed an application for their campaign last month that could be utilized by their most important resource: the people. The application includes news updates, a friends management component which the article states will let users keep track of their friends political positions and who has been called, and a notes component, with talking points for people to use to convince their friends. This use of the rapidly accelerating technological world is a theme that Obama has been quick to use; he made good use of both youtube and facebook resources early in his campaign to try and reach out to a younger, more internet savy generation, and now with this application the campaign can extend their reach through people's personal friendships.

Freedom of Information?

I bet many people didn't know this, but a bill was introduced to the U.S. Senate late last week that was completely overshadowed and forgotten in the controversy surrounding the Wall Street bailout; this bill would put restrictions on the Department of Homeland Security seizing individual's personal computers for search. That's right, for some time now, the DHS has had the authority, which has been upheld by the courts, to seize and search any laptop computer or other data carrying device of someone entering the country. Not only can they detain the computer, but they can also view any data on it; make copies of said data, and even hold the original device for an indeterminate period of time; all without a warrant.
Not something many people would like, is it? The Feds snooping through your personal data, possibly even confidential data depending on your business. Now, understandably, there need to be standards for security. But also, there is a difference between a bomb and data on someone's computer. One can explode and be used to kill people. With the ubiquitous nature of the internet, it's likely that smuggling data in through the border would be the last thing on the mind of anyone who would be out to do harm. They could just as easily, and in fact most likely more easily have access to it through a variety of anonymous internet servers and connections. So why do the Feds feel the need to data snoop? I wish I had the answer; but, like many things happening in the government today, I can only shake my head and wonder why. I'm in favor of this bill, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of the American public would be as well. Hopefully it will not be quietly dismissed in the turmoil in congress right now, but rather quietly passed, so that the majority of the American public can go on none the wiser, now having a slight bit of their privacy restored.

The modern Space Race

With the launch of the first payload to orbit by a private company on a privately designed rocket yesterday, we are, I think, at the forefront of the beginning privatization of space. Between SpaceX's launching craft to orbit, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipOne's manned suborbital hop a couple of years ago, and the recent forming of ULA by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, we are seeing a rapid explosion in funding and development of a private means to get into space, as opposed to strictly government run programs. NASA is even making use of this trend, with the announcement of it's Commercial Orbit Transport System (COTS) program in 2006, which would make use of private spaceflights to provide transport and supplies to the International Space Station.

While competition in the private sector can definately spur rapid development in this area, we must be cautious and not lose sight of the future over rapid gains now. Low Earth Orbits are already quite cluttered with plenty of space junk, and without proper oversight, private spaceflights will only add to that, which will in turn make space more dangerous. While there are plenty of issues at home that need more immediate dealing with, sometime in the next decade the question must be asked as to how to best utilize what available space we have. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is an excellent start on providing for regulation in terms of governments, however there are no provisions for what might happen with the private expansion into space. Only time will tell as to how best to utilize what little area we have around our planet for the betterment of all; perhaps limiting certain companies to certain orbits, perhaps limiting the quantity of items launched into space, perhaps providing for a way to capture and bring space junk back to earth. At this point however, the stars are literally the limit.

Wall Street and Tech

In light of the recent financial crisis on Wall Street, yesterday and this morning I came across several interesting articles detailing the crisis from a more technical side. On CNET yesterday, Charles Cooper wrote an article detailing the extent of the crisis into the internet business sector, specifically, advertising. And this morning, on Tech News World, I read an article that details a key aspect that I think differentiates this situation from those previous; the minute by minute knowledge of the public into news and financial affairs.

Both of these articles tie into what I think is the concern that needs to be addressed in dealing with this situation: the role of the internet in our economy. With more and more people becoming internet savvy, the economy is slowly shifting to accommodate them, with more and more options being made available for internet purchasing, and up to date news streaming. With a more up-to-date populace, the entire climate of politics and management needs to move to accomidate them, and in most cases this means increasing the pace at which things are done. Now, whenever Joe Stockholder gets an update on his iPhone that there is the hint of financial trouble in the stock market, he is quick to use the same device to manage his assets. Gone are the days when independent brokers dealt with issues for their clients, and transactions could take hours or heaven forbid, days, to get in contact with the pertinent parties. With this rise in online business also comes the corresponding rise in capital being invested online. While I think the market is still wary of the dot com bust in the early 2000's, I think for many companies, these recent years have been times when they have begun exploring investing more into online infrastructure, to keep up with an ever growing technological world.

Where does this leave us? In many ways, more precarious than where we would be in previous situations. Online business and advertising is completely dependent on a consumer economy, and with the predicted slump in the consumer market, there is no easy to get reserve capital out of these investments as opposed to possibilities with physical reserves. While I think the online market will be in some part shielded because if it's ease of access, never the less, as Cooper addresses, there doesn't look to be any upturn in financial investment in the near future, a prospect which all business everywhere, be they big, small, online or not, should be wary of.

The long arm of the email

A CNN study released today verified something many of us already know: checking email can be hard to resist. According to their study, while a majority of employees, over 80%, believe that email and other electronic means of communication improve the quality of and ability to do work, almost 50% felt that the ease of access to checking these means of communication make it harder and harder to get away from work.

I feel that as we become more and more tied to technology to accomplish our work, this will become more and more the case. Especially with the rise of cellular technology that lets people check their email directly from their phone. And in some ways, I think this is the result of a populace who doesn't want to become disconnected. Phones, computers, pagers, all these forms of electronic communication can ultimately be turned off, should the user choose. It's not like they are being forced to check email or answer phones unless their job requires that they be available on the off time. Certainly, some in some jobs, like the article mentions, the nature of the industry is making it more competitive, thus there is the impulse to remain connected, to take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities. While that, I think, is a result of human nature, I also feel like the number of critical industries where such decisions need to be made before someone returns to work the next day are so few, and in those cases, there is inevitably another employee who's job it is to work during those hours. I'm a big fan of the idea that society simply needs to relax, and accept that they can't be connected to everything at all times. When you're going out to dinner, turn off your cell phone or pager, your business can wait.

Say Yes to Solar!

I came across this on Cnet this afternoon, and was pleasantly surprised. For once the U.S. Senate got something good accomplished. After 8 times voting down a bill to extend tax credits to homeowners who install solar power systems, a bill which was set to expire this year, they finally approved the measure this past week. The bill now only has to be approved by the House, who had already passed it's predecessors before, so that should be no problem.

In the wake of gas prices rising after Hurricanes Hannah and Ike passed through the Gulf of Mexico, significantly shutting down oil production and and refining, and measure like this that can serve to diminish our dependence on oil is, I think, a worthwhile measure. Furthermore, this helps in many ways, providing tax credits to homeowners in a time of shaky financial markets, which serves to help stimulate the market at it's most effective level; it also gets the general public involved and thinking about green energy, and provides motivation for them to do something about it. Bravo, Congress!

Cell phones in the wild

MSNBC recently had an article reporting recent changes to cell phone reception in Yellowstone National Park. Up until recently, the vast majority of the park and certain surrounding towns went without cell phone reception because of the lack of infastructure or desire to have the landscape studded with cell phone towers. The article mentions the public outcry over placing a tower in the vicinity of Old Faithful about ten years ago; I can remember when that happened I too was not a fan, mainly because cell phones weren't as widespread as they are now.

Being an outdoorsman myself, the questions this issue raises are valid ones. On one hand, as cell phones are becoming more prolific, the question of safety comes into play. If the park had more cell phone coverage, people would have a lifeline they could call in the event of an emergency. On the other hand, there are aesthetics both visually and aurally to take into consideration. The vast majority of people who visit Yellowstone, or any other national park, are there (I hope) to get away from technology, and the stress of their everyday lives. To go there and see cell phone towers dotting the landscape, or to have everyone and their neighbor constantly talking on the phone would detract from that experience. Until there is an improvement over cell phone range (which I think there will be), or universal, affordable satellite phone service (another hope of mine), this debate will continue.

In my opinion, according to the options presented by the article, the park is doing a fairly good job at bridging the gap between the two positions. There are certain parts, the more urban portions, where more and better cell phone towers can be placed with moderate, in the words of the article, impact to "visitor use and experience". I am a fan of not having coverage anywhere more than necessary. The general public should know what to expect going into a place such as Yellowstone, and should not expect to always have cell phone reception. A national park is not a city block, people hopefully understand that nature is defined by the absence of human influence. Human influence that includes visitors talking away on their cell phones, their inescapable ties to society.

Mind Control!

Time magazine last week ran a story that I recently came across that has interesting and hopeful applications: using the power of thought on the battlefield.

Not being much of a psychologist, I was intrigued by this concept, and the research that the Army has decided to put into it. Certainly, from a tactical standpoint, having a soldier who could simply think communications to others instead of having to vocalize them would be a benefit. From an economic standpoint, I'm hoping that this technology can justify the investment. Chiefly, that each system must be individually created for the individual soldier. If the science pans out, and there is a way to interpret brain signals and tap into them before having to convey the intended message via visual or auditory signals, then it would also provide further motivation for the soldier to focus only on the task at hand. How embarrasing would it be to inadvertently have your thoughts slip to something you wouldn't want anyone else knowing, and having it conveyed to other soldiers? My only other worry about this is the precision of the control and the potential for error from the soldier. When a soldier gives a verbal order to a subordinate, he/she knows what they are saying, and how the soldier is going to interpret that order. With mental communication, how one soldier thinks or visualizes a command or objective might be different than another. One can hope that further training could help to minimize this risk.

A very intriguing article that holds promising hopes for what I think could be a very beneficial piece of technology. My favorite part of this article is the quote about the civilian applications that they concluded it with: "'How often have you been annoyed by people screaming into their cell phones?" Schmeisser asks. "What if instead of their Bluetooth earpiece it was a Bluetooth headpiece and their mouth is shut and there's blessed silence all around you?'" Too true.

Political Technology at it's best

New Scientist today had an article about a new software system that measures the amount of "spin" in a politician's speech. It's definately an interesting concept.

In brief, what the software does is analyze the content of the speech for use of certain pronouns, as well as looking at the use of positive vs. negative verbs. Another aspect they look at is the inflection of the voice. My favorite line there is what they say about John McCain: "The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed." Too true. But I digress. What I find most interesting about this article is the method of analysis of "spin".

The creator of the software, Canadian David Sillicorn, arbitrarily defines "spin" as an increased use of third person pronouns, "we", over first person pronouns, "I", and an increased use of action verbs and strong negatively charged words. Sillicorn makes a lot of assumptions about a politician's use of words, and many of these I feel are unfounded. If a politician is talking about the country doing something, they should rightly use the third person; it would be construed as pompous of them to do otherwise. While I can understand the increased use of negative words as trying to define an enemy, which could be one aspect of "spin", using an increased use of action verbs to define spin makes no sense. Politicians running for election are all about the future; for them to use passive voice or present or past tense verbs only makes sense when paired with action verbs: the plan that this person has for the future.

The article opens with an interesting vignette, the "expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says 'Obama'." I was in hopes that the software they were describing would be a frame by frame analysis of a politician's facial features or vocal inflection while they gave a speech. That, I think, would be more telling than an analysis of the content of the speech. Speeches are specifically tailored to a target audience, and I don't think that simply by analyzing the use of certain words can significantly quantify any sort of "spin" content. Leave that decision to the voters.

Metered Internet?

An article in the New York Times today discussed what could quite possibly be the next wave in internet access following the propagation of broadband access to the masses: metering the internet and charging by bandwidth used.

Now, as a moderate internet user, I can certainly see the validity of the argument for this style of accounting for internet use. I certainly don't mind that the p2p user next door would have to pay a surcharge for all of his 'illegal' file sharing that slows down my internet speed. And, as the article relates, at least in terms of Time Warner, they will, for the first time, have different internet plans based on the expected bandwidth use of the client. Sounds good right? If you're a light internet user, using the 'net only for mail and google searches, then you can get off paying much less than the high-end WoW gamer.

There's a catch. Anyone who has run a NETSTAT on their computer knows that there are many, many more hidden programs running in the background that use bandwidth, such as iTunesHelper or the notorious Windows Media Player Network Sharing Service. Given that the majority of computer users most likely have no idea that there are processes running that use bandwidth even if they are not actively surfing the net, this could pose problems for those users. Furthermore, from personal experience in the IT field, many, many internet users have no idea about the concept of bandwidth being limited, and some even go so far as to complain about slow buffering times when watching youtube videos, for example. Who knows, maybe if this procedure takes hold, the average user will become more conscious about their bandwidth use, and about the structure of the internet in general, instead of simply viewing it as a collection of tubes.

The other major concern I have about this is something the article briefly touches on, the procedure for actually metering internet use. For starters, the internet has vastly outgrown what anyone expected it to become in the late '80's and early '90's. There was never any thought for a mechanism to monitor bandwidth use; and while it wouldn't be too hard to implement, there are many problems that could arise. First is bandwidth piracy. If the ISP doesn't monitor bandwidth at the site of the client's router, then it would be feasible for others to tap into that client's data stream somewhere along the line and run up the legitimate user's bandwidth at no cost to themselves. The second would be wireless networks. The bandwidth of wireless networks fluctuates greatly with the number of users at any given time. This could prove tricky for a household or company who sees usage patterns fluctuate, as there is the desire not to pay surcharges for excessive bandwidth use, while at the same time to not be paying for unnecessary bandwidth. It's a tricky situation that I think needs to be pilot tested under a variety of circumstances before being foisted upon the unsuspecting public.

So all in all, I'm up in the air about this one. I would have to see some more definitive figures from the ISP's to compare them to current prices before I could judge this effectively. It is just a slippery slope to walk down, for there are plenty of methods that could prove disastrous to the entire industry if mismanaged. And lord knows what an economic disaster that would be.