Governing bodies are uniquely talented at throwing good money toward bad ideas. Today Earthlink reminds us that technology is no exception.

Earthlink’s announcement that it was throwing in the towel on an ambitious plan to bring public Wi-Fi to the entire city of Philadelphia marks the end of a glorious, but doomed experiment. The promoters of free municipal Wi-Fi hoped that optimistic techno-utopianism would somehow trump engineering and economic realities. They were, of course, wrong. (… read full)

Source: BusinessWeek

Some people might ask, ‘Well, at $500 a share, why can’t Google pay for special treatment?’ The reality is that at $500 a share Google can afford to pay. Yet the reality is that this is precisely the wrong question to ask. Instead, the question is whether Larry Page and Sergei Brin — the two young founders of Google — could have paid when they were mere grad students launching their idea. (Betanews)

-Congressman Markey (D-MA) rationalizing his bill to regulate the internet last week

Good news congressman, web hosting is way below $500… on the downside, unlike your bill, the internet still requires a good idea.

For more, see Reason’s More Net Neutrality Nonsense.

Verizon took another bold step towards consumer choice yesterday, by embracing linux on cell phones. The Tribune reports:

Verizon became the first U.S. wireless carrier to join what’s called the LiMo Foundation, a group of companies pushing to create an open, Linux-based operating system for wireless products. The now 40-member group also includes phonemakers Motorola, Samsung and LG…

Over the coming year Verizon previously announced plans to remove restrictions on the types of cell phones compatible with their wireless service. Moving this direction, allowing consumers to alter their phones’ operating system, is a natural extension of their new open wireless service business model.

Markey is trying to turn the Internet into a highly regulated industry like the waterways and railroads of the 19th century, according to Republican Reps. Cliff Stearns, ranking member of the subcommittee, and Fred Upton of Michigan.

In defense, Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, claims there’s an urgent need for internet regulation.

Free Press supports the right to network management, but draws the line at discrimination based on content or a particular application, like BitTorrent, Scott said. “That’s the kind of targeting and selectivity that should be left to the consumer.”

But should it? BitTorrent software is uniquely designed to gobble up bandwidth, and as a side-effect can harm the internet service of other customers nearby (see yesterday’s post). Comcast shouldn’t have initially lied about not managing internet traffic, but that doesn’t mean what they did is wrong. Comcast had a legitimate grievance.

If two of my neighbors decide to pirate the whole Star Wars movie collection simultaneously with BitTorrent, tying up the internet to such a degree that I can’t check my e-mail… where’s the justice in net neutrality there? Strict net neutrality could restrain an internet service provider (ISP) from protecting it’s own customers.

Preserving a free internet means thumbs down for HR 5353. Markey has a strange vision that the internet will fail to produce great new ideas without government protection. Government… bureaucracy is where good ideas come to die. This bill will empower bureaucrats to change the internet; and bureaucrats only go one direction, red tape.

Bill Toland of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette asks, “Is it traffic management or is Comcast just being a bully?”

The expanded tax would supplement pre-existing property taxes paid for such utility lines stretching over private land.

Ironically electrical lines, virtually identical in nature, enjoy no such loop hole. They must pay comprehensive property taxes over all land. However poles and wires for these traditional utility lines are instead, exempt from sales taxes.

The big ISPs appear to be in the midst of a marketing war. It’s a sign of vibrant competition between service providers… better service should follow.

NARAL, a hard-line pro-abortion group, had a text message blast rejected by wireless provider Verizon on the grounds that Verizon reserves the right to refuse to send controversial messages — of any political persuasion — over its system…

Surely, I thought, this would lead to calls for regulatory action, and surely confusion would ensue. Never mind that after a swift and loud public outcry, Verizon reversed its decision the very next day…

And sure enough, with the help of some liberal advocacy groups, the FCC has begun to mull the business of texting and rejecting. Several of these groups, led by the left-leaning tech advocacy organization Public Knowledge, recently submitted a petition demanding that the FCC issue a ruling that blockages are illegal….

BUT WHAT THEY’RE calling for is hardly safe text. Instead, it’s governmental bullying. Their rallying cry is that Verizon’s action amounted to “censorship.”

But was it? Most people would not think it censorship for a party host to ask an unruly, argumentative guest to settle down, nor for their local coffee shop to place rules on what bulletins might or might not be posted on its cork board. These are private actors that have a right and, indeed, often an obligation to watch over what is said and done on their property.

The same goes for Verizon. Just because its network exists largely in the wireless ether doesn’t make it any less property. Verizon, like any property owner, needs to reserve the right to manage the content that flows over its network.

[read Suderman’s full article here]