Free the Airwaves

The Internet Is Down -- Now What?

"It’s likely that the Internet will soon experience a catastrophic failure, a multi­day outage that will cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars.

Or maybe it isn’t likely.

In any case, companies are not prepared for such a possibility.

But then again, some are.

These mixed messages come from credible sources. The confusion stems in part from the fact that the Internet has never seen anything much worse than local outages and brief slowdowns. But could it? And if it did, how ready would your company be?"

I have some valuable thoughts on this, which are unfortunately too large to fit in the margins of this blog.

YouTube - The Day The Routers Died...

Very good one:

Link from Valleywag.

The Killing of Wi-Fi : The Threat of Wi-Fi - Columns by PC Magazine

"Here's the value proposition. Wi-Fi is currently at 54 Mbps and has been for years. Reaching 100 Mbps is easily achievable thanks to pre-n and other tricks. The cell connections run from 384 Kbps with EDGE up to maybe 2 Mbps on EV-DO, if you're lucky. These are the speeds we were playing with 10 years ago, but now they're some sort of breakthrough. Yes, it's a kind of breakthrough, considering the phone companies' old 115-Kbps GPRS clunker technologies.

For these speeds—which are capped, mind you, so you cannot actually use what you are sold—you pay $50, $60, maybe $70 a month. And for that money, you get to send files from a park bench a couple of times a week or maybe once a month from the airport. Is the public so stupid that if given the choice between that service and free municipal Wi-Fi, they'd want the slower expensive service over the free faster service?"

Yes Indeedy!

Everything is Miscellaneous

"I had a brainstorm-y idea I floated to NPR I will try out on you, too. Keep in mind that it's an ill-formed, un-thought-through idea, which you should feel free to kick the bejeezus out of.

NPR values civil discourse. And, despite its reputation in some circles, it's committed to being non-partisan. So, suppose on pages devoted to particular segments or topics, NPR listeners were explicitly charged with pulling together links that represent the spectrum of opinion and thought on that topic. If it were a page about, say, the Libby trial, users would be asked to find Web references from the left and right, from US and elsewhere, from the scholarly to the flippant. If this were to work, it would presumably be because some small cadre of users stepped up to the task. Getting the 'social physics ' right would be crucial, of course.(This idea is spurred by Debatepedia, except it aims at a plurality of views, not a duopoly.)

Bad idea? Impractical? Undesirable? Too much coffee, not enough reality?"

Maybe I'm missing the point of your idea, but I'll kick the bejeezus out of anyway:

Slashdot, Digg, Netscape, the list is endless of places you can go and have a good argument (insults are down the hall). We started down this road before the Internet even got popular with the original "Usenet" newsgroups, where the word "flame war" was first coined (I think).

Never in these "debates" doesn't anyone appear to change their mind about anything and almost never does anyone even admit to having discovered an aspect of the issue that they were previously unaware of. Such discovery does take place I suspect, it's just that everyone too proud to admit it.

I've never understood why media outlets maintain the pretense of neutrality (they don't do a very good job of it generally), but my hunch is that it is simply to get the largest audience. You can lean to the left or right, so long as you don't lean so far as to drive half the audience away in disgust.

Let's face it, we can't all be well informed about everything. Read one of the web sites mentioned above to see how woefully uninformed we can be. Even journalists display their ignorance on a regular basis, and some of this ignorance comes through as bias (eg: yes there ARE scientists that don't buy global warming theories, no matter how often you say the issue is settled, their stories are on the net, why not on NPR?).

My favorite programs often have well spoken (key ingredient) representative from across the political spectrum, and a moderator that lets them have more or less equal time. I've never seen anyone do this better than the McLaughlin Group, but others do a passable job. Often the commercial interruptions or the need to cover too many topics spoil the chance for any depth. If there is such a show where they only cover one topic per week I don't know of it (but I'm a radio and Internet person who rarely watches TV).

I don't know of anything like this on the Internet, but it could be a perfect, in ways, a much better format:

1: Pick topic
2: Assemble two or three topic matter experts with views that span the spectrum.
3: Post starter article (this could be in written, podcast, or video format, or some combination) that lays out the basic issue in the most broad terms (no potentially biased details). Topic expert could express themselves at this point, but I sort of think this would be distracting to "viewers" who might start forulating responses rather than just spelling out what they think from their existing knowledge.
4: Allow readers, viewers, etc. to either post their ideas to a public forum, or (this might be better) e-mail their points of view, to prevent the flame wars. E-mail would encourage each viewer to give it their best shot in one message rather than drop into "debate" mode.
5: Have the topic matter experts read all the responses (offline) and prepare a statement that puts forth their (the expert's) point of view, augmented by any supporting statements from the received comments (and/or pointing out particularly flawed arguments from those same comments).

Give each expert the same amount of time to speak or the same word limit to stay within. Optionally have a rebuttal round or two.

---

The problem with this format is of course it doesn't give the professional journalists much to do. That is unless they also serve as the topic matter experts, something that might be OK for some political discussions, but not so OK for hard science, technology issues, and other areas where journalists don't have enough depth. Maybe thats why it's never been done.

We used too expect our politicians to do our homework for us. Daily public opinion polls have made our democracy more participatory, but do we really want these decisions made based on who shouts the loudest? Our form of government could well vote itself out of existence if we don't find a new way to carry on the debate soon. I'm not optimistic.