Two Complaints

Briefly, two problems that should already be solved:

1. Text Messaging: Why are we still being charged for ~150 measly little ASCII characters? Why hasn't instant messaging on mobile devices entirely replaced SMS/MMS? IM is free and SMS/MMS costs ~$0.20/each or ~$20/month unlimited. In fact, its actually more expensive to send data via text message than the Hubble Space Telescope.
   
   Yes, I know there are currently IM apps on cell phones, but they're really no good and not well integrated into the device. But poor execution doesn’t damn a plan (or technology). Given the right implementation, this should be seamless and invisible, the only noticeable changes being the elimination of SMS charges on my bill and the ability to send short messages to any of my friends on any mobile or IM network. In fact, Apple could do this with my iPhone, keeping the same UI & everything, and I would be none the wiser, but of course AT&T would never allow them to eliminate such a valuable revenue stream.
   


2. Social Media Status Updates: Why do I have to log into several different sites to ensure all my followers across the web can enjoy my witty status updates? Why can't there be one site that allows me to fire off an update via web or mobile, and my Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. statuses are immediately updated? Bonus points for periodically checking my pages to see if I've made a rogue "native" update and keeping the rest in sync.

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

As mentioned earlier, my department recently held a very successful Computer Science Research Day. The keynote speaker was Dr. Guru Parulkar, Stanford researcher (and UD alum) working on a project called the "Clean Slate Design for the Internet." The goal of this work is to re-design the Internet with 'modern' features that will improve security and quality of service, as well as provide new classes of services.

I viewed his entire presentation as a direct attack against Network Neutrality. The basic premise was that the Internet is broken, it's getting worse, and it needs to be fixed. How do we fix it? Increased 'control & management' by ISPs and government. A central theme seemed to be finding new ways for ISPs to monetize traffic and develop 'value-added services.' In other words, getting me to pay for things I can get for free elsewhere. This will be accomplished by denying or degrading access to competitors in the name of 'security,' 'reliability,' and 'return on investment.'

My question to the speaker was, "Many people would argue that the freedom and success of the Internet is a result of what you refer to as the 'dumb' infrastructure. If we were to implement the changes you propose, how would Network Neutrality survive?" [paraphrase]

Dr. Parulkar's response was based on the claim that it wasn't 'fair' that Google made billions while Comcast's market capitalization remained stagnant. The last time I checked, these companies were in entirely different businesses, although Dr. Parulkar conveniently lumps them together as "service providers." Why in the world would I ever want to pay Comcast (or Verizon, or Time Warner, etc.) additional fees for poorly designed implementations of services I can get for free elsewhere? I pay my ISP for access to the Internet, and Google et al. pay ISPs for their net access, so why do the ISPs believe they are entitled to any additional remuneration for this connection?

The phrase "Network Neutrality" was not mentioned until I brought it up in my question. I believe the subject was intentionally avoided.

ISPs are a utility, just like the electric company. I just want to pay a competitive market price for unfettered Internet access with no strings attached. Is that really an unreasonable expectation? Unfortunately, many ISPs don't understand the business they are in, and apparently, neither do many researchers.

It's ironic that Stanford, original home to Google who has thrived due in large part to Network Neutrality, is leading the charge against it.

Apparently I'm not the only one who takes issue with the underlying purposes of this project.

Implications of a Closed Universe

Does infinity actually exist, as something more than just a concept? If the universe is a closed, finite system (which is currently unknown) then it cannot. I believe mathematical concepts are not real and valid unless they can be expressed in a physical system. So, if we cannot have an infinite number of any 'thing,' then infinity is an invalid concept. There are no 'Platonic ideal forms.' Just because we can imagine something does not grant existence to that thing. I can imagine lots of things, like unicorns and flying pigs, but they aren't real.

So, if it turns out that we live in a finite universe, and infinity doesn't exist, then time is finite too. Time will eventually end and existence will cease, in a 'Big Crunch' or similar event. Would this provide a solution to the Halting Problem then? If there is an end of time, then no program or algorithm will run forever, so for all X, HALT(X, X) = TRUE.

I should probably file this under Ramblings...