Why, then, when my smartphone stopped working the day after I returned from my trip, did I freak out? I literally panicked, because the phone was completely functionless – no GPS, no phone, no texting, no email… I couldn’t even tell what time it was. I was in a state of shock and anger, and all I could think about was getting the damn thing fixed.

I was at a pre-4th of July celebration, about to watch fireworks with several close friends and my girlfriend, and all I could think about was my stupid cell phone, and how, if something went down, I wouldn’t have an outside line. Oh, and I was also disappointed, I wouldn’t be able to take pictures of the fireworks.

When did I become this dependent on my phone? Why did I become this dependent on my phone? Just two days prior, I was happily grilling over a pit without any outside communication, or was I deceiving myself?

The fact of the matter is, that while I was not using my phone as a communication device, I was still using it for the GPS functionality, and the ability to take photos and play music. I wasn’t truly roughing it. If I wanted to do that, I’d have brought a traditional map, a few disposable cameras, and a CD player. Instead, because I’ve become so entrenched in technology, I fooled myself into thinking I was achieving some sort of grand accomplishment, when in reality, I was achieving balderdash.

I still had my creature comforts to cling to, and if an emergency did go down, the phone icon was right there, eager to be pressed and ready to obey my commands. Hell, I even had great reception in those woods, and that’s really something for AT&T.

As much as you think you know what you can and can’t do without, once you experience it for yourself, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

A girl in Germany learned this the hard way this weekend.  The girl, named Thessa, created a Facebook invite to her 16th birthday party, and accidentally left it as public.  Because of this, the invite became a viral hit, and over 15,000 people checked themselves as attending.  Her parents canceled the party, hired private security, and alerted the police that there was potential for a major party and even a riot.

In the end, 1,500 people arrived. They were met there by 100 police officers, including four on horseback.  The party-goers had alcohol, and many were inebriated. They chanted for Thessa to come out and celebrate, and they screamed, “Thessa, celebrating a birthday is not a crime” in response to the police force.

The police detained eight people and had one officer injured.  The local fire department also had to respond to put out two fires. Thessa spent the party in hiding.

This should serve as a bit of a Facebook wake up call. I don’t know about you, but I have everything on my Facebook set to friends only.  As this shows, anything you post can end up anywhere if you do not monitor the settings.  Facebook is a fun social platform, but it has its dangers. Many people also feel that businesses and colleges may not accept you because of things on your Facebook page.  This is true, although somethings may cross the line.  According to WLS-TV of Chicago, “The family of a suburban Chicago high school student is considering legal action against the school after their son was suspended for creating a Facebook page that criticized a teacher.”  That is too far, but it shows that you Facebook profile should be monitored, because it can be viewed far more than you may think.

Facebook is fun, but remember to watch the settings.  You don’t want to get suspended, fired, …or have 1,500 arrive at a party.

(The information on the party is credited to the New York Times).

From the article:

“In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands.”

The long and short of it is that the New America Foundation and the Public Knowledge group have sent a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate AT&T and Comcast for unscrupulous service standards due to their data caps.

Since the very beginning of Internet access, people have been used to the idea of “unlimited Internet,” meaning that they pay a flat fee per month for a certain speed, and they are able to visit whichever websites they want, and view whatever content they want, however much they want; however, when folks began to use more data, Internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon saw the winds of change and knew they had to act. The ISPs created data caps and quietly limited their customers’ usage to certain amounts of data per month.

The problem is that for the majority of the time while these companies were using these data caps, they were advertising unlimited Internet. Not only is this not the definition of unlimited, it’s shady and underhanded. For companies that continually increase their profits, they tend to do a lot of complaining about how hard it is to add infrastructure and how high bandwidth usage is hurting their networks. Perhaps they should take a tip from some of the South Korean ISPs, who are not only cheaper, but faster and unlimited as well. Wait – never mind – that won’t happen, because in South Korea, they actually have this thing called competition – silly me.

Know what I think is going on? The ISPs, who happen to serve up TV as well see this big slice of Internet pie that’s going to taken away from TV usage. So instead of working on a way to bring TV to the Internet themselves, they sit on their asses and change the idea of what the Internet is supposed to be in order to do the least amount of work to maximize their profits.

Know what you call something like that? Bulls**t.

• Does my work require me to carry a phone? This question is a tricky one in today’s society.  Your work may not have literally told you to buy one, but if you need to have constant email and web access, you need a smartphone. At the same time, you may think you need constant contact but actually do not. For example, you may assume that getting emails after work  is important, but if you don’t have to respond to them immediately, you might not actually need one.
• Can I afford to pay for the phone? Most people will believe they can afford the $199.99 iPhone. But – there’s a data plan too. You must pay a minimum of $29.99 more a month in order to get a data plan for your phone. And, of course, you are locked in for two years when you buy the phone and plan.  That’s an extra $719.76 to pay. And if you continue to use the phone, but don’t pay for data, the extra charges are so much that you will be better off paying for the plan. Thus, the cost of having a smartphone adds up rapidly.
• Do you have a clue how to use the phone? Recently, my step-mom got a HTC smartphone. The problem is she doesn’t have much skill with phones. I literally had to show her how to tell if she had missed a call, and if she had any voice mail. If you don’t know how to use the phone, it is presumably not worth buying.

So, consider the questions above, and if you answer yes to numbers one or two, you need a smartphone. If you are borderline and answer yes to the third question, you should get one. With this information in mind, deciding if the smartphone is really necessary becomes much simpler.

The device is a transparent sapphire crystal that is sandwiched between two platinum panels located on the long, thin sides.  It runs on the android system and is providing a glimpse of what comes next in cell phone technology.  All the electronics are located in the platinum, including the SIM card, the battery, and the computer chips.  The ‘device’ developed with phone maker Mobiado, and dubbed the “CPT002.”

The phone can do more than just do the same old, same old though.  It can unlock the owner’s Aston Martin, work with the car’s GPS, and take photos from a dash-mounted camera.  The phone also helps monitor speed in the case of a crash.  This phone has an interesting interface with the car.

Now, this may be the future, but others will disagree.  Personally, I think the future of phone will be a device that can be rolled up like a piece of paper.  This technology already exists, but is far too expensive.  Also, I would like to see phones that interact with technology around them, such as if you are looking at a computer, and you can use you phone to access the same data if you walk away.  Thus, I believe the future may not be much like the phone predicted by Aston Martin.

The best part about the phone isn’t its technology, though, it’s the luxury.  No other phone is made from sapphire and platinum.  That is one of the only phone I would truly call luxury.

People in favor of net neutrality (read: everyone who isn’t a major ISP or lawmaker who receives money from a major ISP) argue that it is against the very foundation of the Internet that a service provider can determine what sites a user can visit and at what quality of service (read: speed) they can visit them at. It doesn’t stop at just websites, however. Services ranging from email, to peer-to-peer networks, to IRC, to BBS and even Usenet are all at risk should the service providers get their way.

The service providers argue that they should be allowed to regulate their networks as they see fit. They also believe in squeezing every last bit of cash they can out of their customers for very little in the way of infrastructure or service improvement.

Lastly, there are the other folks who argue that even though they believe in basic net neutrality principles, they believe government should not step in to regulate the Internet. They tend to believe the free market will work its magic.

Herein lies the problem. Should this be a matter of government-regulation? If so, how much regulation should government be allowed to impose?

Here’s my take on the issue:

The free market is broken. The game is rigged. In any area of the country you travel to, you will have a maximum of two choices for acceptable (I use that term loosely) broadband internet. While not a monopoly, this is about as close as it gets.

The competition is an illusion brought on by price fixing and corporate maneuvering. When the Government gives your company millions in order to build infrastructure and you pocket the cash instead, that’s slimy. When the Government wants to build its own infrastructure and you cry foul and get the program killed, that’s evil.

I can’t say that government intervention is exactly what’s needed; in a perfect world, it wouldn’t be. We don’t live in a perfect world, however. We live in a world where the corporations that own the pipes that we rely on day-in and day-out have us by the balls. Unless there are laws in place to safeguard the open Internet, we can kiss our buffet of information goodbye.

I personally am on T Mobile, but there are many other options.  There are many networks, but I will focus on the big four: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.  These four have nationwide service and a collective 393.2 million users worldwide.  These networks have their own ups and downs, making each one good for different situations.

• Verizon Wireless: the largest provider within the U.S. alone, this network is famous for the line “Can you hear me now?”   Verizon offers 3G and limited 4G Lite, but only in urban areas as of now.  They have a smart phone selection of Androids, Blackberries, and palm phoners.   Also, they now carry the once AT&T-exclusive iPhone.  Verizon has excellent service in New Hampshire where I live, which is a bonus for people in my area.
• AT&T: the second largest provider in the U.S.  They provide the unique feature of rollover minutes, which is an attractive offer to many people.  Also, they offer the trendy iPhone along with many other smart phones.  They have 3G networks, but they are limited to urban areas and a 4G LTE network is in development.
• Sprint: the third largest network in the U.S., Sprint is, to me anyway, less a of a personal network and more of one for businesses.  I think of them as the company who provides push-to-talk phones as the primary product, even if this isn’t true.  They actually offer 3G in cities and smart phones.
• T-Mobile: the final major network, T-Mobile is the smallest network, but they, too, offer 3G service.  T-Mobile lacks the iPhone but offers many other smart phones, such as the MY Touch 4G, an iPhone competitor.  They service is poor in my area, because I lose service if I go 45 minutes north, but to the south is fine.  Interestingly, I have 3G just about everywhere.

Hopefully, these little bits of data will help with your cell carrier choosing adventure!

You may have read my last post regarding Facebook being an evil company with complete control over the personal information you post. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, I’d like you to ask yourself the following question: “Is Facebook the best way for me to be social?” If you’ve done any hard thinking about this, chances are that the answer is no.

For most Facebook users, their friends list is comprised of three groups: One group being the user’s actual friends and family, another being co-workers and the last being people with whom the user is loosely connected, but doesn’t speak to regularly, if at all. In all cases, the ability to socially interact with people is hindered by the lack of actual human interaction, however brief. How much emotion can you honestly express to a good friend through text on a screen? Spare me the emoticon nonsense; I can tell you from personal experience, it doesn’t hold water. The same can be said for text messages.

As a species we thrive on human interaction, yet cut ourselves off from it day after day, minute after minute because texting or Facebook is seemingly more convenient and saves us from the stresses of personal interaction. It is my belief that the more we deprive ourselves of authentic human interaction and socializing, the more prone we are to disregard others’ feelings and needs and become numb to the world around us. This, I can also attest to from personal experience.

I am going to be performing an experiment of my own. Each of my Facebook friends that I regularly engage with, I will be taking down their available contact information and updating my address book. I will be either deleting my Facebook and recreating it or I will clean it of all the junk I’ve posted over the years (none of which actually gets deleted from Facebook’s servers, incidentally). I will then make a concerted effort with my friends to refrain, as much as possible, from posting on walls, texting or otherwise missing that human interaction.

If the experiment succeeds, I plan to explore other areas to improve upon and will post with my results. Wish me luck.

Now, I will admit it myself, I was an iPad skeptic.  In fact, one of my favorite comments on it was in a Youtube video.  In the words of the video, “Does it fit in a manila folder?” “F#@! yes it does!”  Now, I have begun to see the ‘light’, and realize the iPad’s capabilities.

The iPad is essentially, in my opinion, the smoothie made from a netbook, iPod touch, and a e-reader put into a blender.  It is a slightly awkward, but tasty smoothie.  At first, I was intrigued by it, but it seemed ridiculous compared to a laptop.  I mean, it lacked a keyboard and no Flash Player.  The biggest flaw I saw was the size, though.  It just seemed exorbitant for a device to be so large.  Over time, though, my view began to change.

First of all, I went from comparing it to laptops to looking at it as a laptop.  When you look at it as a laptop, you begin to see more of its true potential.  It is about the same size and weight, and could be easily carried in a laptop bag.  It may not have a keyboard, but many detachable keyboard are made, including wireless ones.  Also, I have used a couple and found that the touch-screen keyboard is very functional and user friendly.  Unless you have elephantiasis fingers, you will type just fine.  This means that when you don’t need a keyboard, you can say, “Screw it” and leave the keyboard at home, compacting the size.  Like its ‘predecessor’, the iPod touch, the touchscreen makes it a very fun ‘toy’.  You can take it and play a wide variety of games.  Also, it has gone wireless/wifi less, with AT&T providing 3G service with 250 megabytes for $14.99 a month and 2 gigabytes for $25 a month.  The home screen and apps scream Apple device, with the minimalistic aesthetics and smoothness.  Finally, it will oust the e-readers because it, too, has a book app.

So, the once hated and parodied iPad has actually become one of the most functional pieces of technology this year, earning it my 2010 electronic device award. (Sorry, Android.)

Net neutrality is the idea that an internet service provider (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) cannot disrupt traffic over its network in any way. This allows packets of data that identify as “email” to go through at the same speed as data packets that identify as “streaming video.” This ensures that the playing field is level for all services and ensures that ISPs are not going to degrade traffic from potentially competing companies.

There is another side to the issue as well. Suppose Comcast decided that they wanted to serve up the internet like television, and charge a small fee for basic web surfing on sites like Yahoo for searching and The Washington Post for news. They charge more for social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, and even more for video sites like YouTube. Lastly, they give you the super-duper package which allows you to visit Hulu and Netflix, all at a premium price, of course.

See the problem? This isn’t what the internet was intended to be, but if the telecoms have their way it’s what the internet will become. The success of the internet has always been that every website has a fair shake of getting noticed. Google became Google because people found out about it and decided it was better. If companies can pay for priority traffic (another of the telecoms’ ideas), then the little guys’ websites who need the exposure are less likely to get it because they won’t have the cash to be a fast website on Verizon’s network, even though without Verizon’s meddling with the data, they would be just as fast as the competition with the deep-pockets.

The point is, innovation is being stifled by these arrogant fat-cats who always want as much money as they can get their hands on so they can look good for the investors. You know what I say? Screw the investors. You people are ruining progress in this country by playing a game of blackjack with a company’s net worth and making other people suffer because you want higher profits. You’re the bane of the free world and you should be lynched.

Hell, Japan has a competitive ISP market and we’re supposed to be the leading country? Wake up.