On August 4th, an article appeared in the New York Times that stunned Silicon Valley: Former internet policy adversaries Google and Verizon were working on a deal that would allow carriers to charge websites for premium access speeds.

On August 5th, both Verizon and Google were completely denying that a deal or agreement on net neutrality was in the works.

As it turns out, the denials were a word game.

The two companies announced on August 9th that they have been talking and have created a policy framework for the management of internet traffic. Ever since, Google has been fending off criticism from nearly every corner of the tech industry. As you read back to the initial denials from Google, it is clear now that the language was carefully chosen:

“The New York Times is quite simply wrong,” a Google spokeswoman said in an e-mail. “We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.”

The New York Times was also right – a policy deal was in the works, it just wasn’t about “paying for carriage of Google traffic”. It’s a word game that back-fired on Google and unnecessarily fueled speculation about what the agreement really means.

As you listen to Google deny that they have abandoned ‘Net Neutrality‘ and peel back the noise from neutrality advocates, you get the sense that this really isn’t about policy as much as it is about appearance and communication. The most obvious problem is that the public is already skeptical of telephone companies so any policy agreement between Google and Verizon was going to be viewed poorly no matter how good the intent. Google had the same problem recognizing public sensitivities around privacy when they launched Buzz.

Google would help itself greatly if it just explained in plain English how this policy framework would be implemented by them. Some have speculated that the policy agreement is really intended to serve Google’s interest in providing faster service without impacting the internet:

Proximity to users is important because of the way data moves around the Internet – by hopping from one router to another. Because each hop takes time – only a matter of milliseconds, but still measurable time – the best way to speed transmission is to reduce the hops. This can be done either by creating a figurative fast lane, which violates net neutrality, or by putting the data closer to the user, which doesn’t.

Google’s agreement with Verizon could very well be merely a way for Google to get its data closer to users, by dropping its shipping containers into Verizon data centers, or perhaps their parking lots. The phone company’s data centers, after all, are typically a hop or two from Internet users.

Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic – and money for both Verizon and Google. Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.

If true, why doesn’t Google just communicate this? Why the tap dance, the clever denials and now defense of cloudy policy?

Wireless

One area still of concern is the lack of policy around wireless. Google claims that “the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market” and, for the time being, should not be impacted by policy. Yes, there is more competition in wireless, but not a whole lot more. When dial-up modems were the only way to access the internet, there were many more competitors. The telephone and cable companies jumped in and competition drove innovation to provide higher speed access which in turned spurred further innovation as the capabilities of the internet were exploited.

Today, in spite of high demand, the competition isn’t there to force wireless innovation. Instead, the incentive for AT&T (and most telephone companies for that matter) is to leverage the scarcity (supply) of wireless to build a tiered model of service.  Even though AT&T has more than enough demand for it’s services, it has been slower than it’s much smaller and less capitalized “competition” (Sprint) to roll out faster 4G service. Why? Because exclusive demand for the iPhone has muted any need for AT&T to compete with Sprint’s 4G service. The result is that AT&T customers will pay more in a tiered plan for the same bad service. There is simply no reason at this point for AT&T to compete and innovate when they can make more money with the same level service.

We needed more than demand in the dial-up days to drive innovation, we needed real competition – and it worked. Short of that level of competition, we’ll need a policy framework for wireless that keeps data neutrality in place so that innovation, not tiered services, becomes the priority for the telephone companies.

I’ve ranted on the podcast that Apple’s iPad was more of a toy than a high tech tool. If you want to read a book, watch a movie or play a game it’s a great device… but I’m still baffled why an enterprise engineer would want to run desktop virtualization through an iPad. It’s not what the iPad was designed for and even Steve Jobs has stated “We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops”. Contrary to fanboy belief, Apple does not create business tools, they create  consumer electronics.

Cisco on the other hand builds business tools and they’ve just unveiled the Cius (pronounced like ’see-us’) which can only be described as the business equivalent for the  iPad. The specs are impressive:

• 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, 3G/4G data and Bluetooth 3.0 help employees stay connected
• HD video (720p) with Cisco TelePresence solution interoperability for lifelike video communication with the simplicity of a phone call
• Forward-facing, integrated HD (720p and 30 fps) video camera with zoom
• Rear-facing, high-resolution 5-megapixel camera enables real-time, VGA-quality (640 x 480) video capture and still-photo capture
• Virtual desktop client enables highly secure access to cloud-based business applications
• Android operating system, with access to Android marketplace applications
• Collaboration applications including Cisco Quad, Cisco Show and Share, WebEx, Presence, and IM
• 7” diagonal, high-resolution color screen with contact-based touch targets delivers an elegant, intuitive experience
• HD Soundstation supports Bluetooth and USB peripherals, 10/100/1000 wired connectivity and a handset option
• Detachable and serviceable 8-hour battery for a full day of work
• Highly secure remote connections with Cisco AnyConnect Security VPN Client
• HD audio with wideband support (tablet, HD Soundstation)

The Google Android operating system of the Cius provides a solid, flexible and open platform for the multimedia experience of an iPad with potentially robust business application development that is already built for cloud access. It also comes with a virtual desktop client application. With Cisco’s AnyConnect Security VPN Client you also get a level of inherent protection. The Cius also stands apart from the iPad as a communication device whether it’s for voice or video calls.

Still, some questions do come up.

Is a seven inch screen big enough for business purposes? While this seems to be the form factor of the moment, I suspect as content creation becomes more prevalent on tablet computers, their size will increase to something closer to just under letter-size.

Will the Cius be restricted to business use or will it push down to ‘prosumer’ class? If the Cius is tightly hinged to their high-end enterprise tools like Cisco’s Unified Presence, it’s doubtful you’ll ever see it for sale in a Best Buy. If Cisco wants to put a dent in the market share of business notebooks, they’ll need to bridge both business and personal use to a degree.

Is this an iPad killer? Not at all… but they have built a far more practical tablet that is capable of adapting to the user environment. In fact, the Cius further legitimizes tablet-based computing which should also be good for the iPad.

In the battle of mobile phones, I picked the Sprint HTC EVO… and
that decision wasn’t really that hard. While the gadget guys debate phone specs, the real world debate is much simpler. Here is how I made my decision…

First, it’s a phone – While this should be obvious, this detail seems to get lost in the phone hardware debate. I had an iPhone for over two years and the service at AT&T was so bad for so long that I had to leave. Business calls were regularly (multiple times a day) getting dropped no matter where I was in the country. While I’ve had the EVO  just short of a week, I have yet to drop a call. In addition, I think the voice quality of the call is better on the EVO. I can’t imagine any reason why I’d want to stay with AT&T with such poor voice service. This reason alone was enough to cause me to switch to the EVO.

Then there’s email – Besides using the phone for calls, I also use it for email and calendaring – another typical business use. The email application on an Android-based phone is much more flexible in threading and filtering emails. The iPhone email client is simple and workable, but it’s no where close to business class.

Philosophy – There’s a philosophical aspect that drove me to use the EVO as well. Whether it’s an iPhone or an iPad, Apple makes products that are idiot proof and simple to use. This good philosophy extends to applications and has caused Apple to make some really bad decisions on how they control the application environment. I want to decide which apps I like and don’t like… I don’t want my phone manufacturer to filter out stable programs for arbitrary business reasons. There is no good technological reason why Apple rejected the Google Voice application. The rejection signifies everything that is wrong with Apple’s control of the application environment. It stifles innovation under the completely disingenuous guise of building a good user experience.

Tethering – Apple and AT&T promised that tethering would be available at some point in the future. As it turned out, it took over two years and a more expensive data plan. I’ve been extremely pleased with the tethering capabilities with the EVO if even on 3G for now. I expect it will be screaming fast with 4G.

GPS – With business travel, you need a GPS. Again, Apple has been promising this capability for awhile and they do offer it now, but it took awhile. (Clarification, I meant turn-by-turn navigation capability. When the 3G was originally released, it did include “A-GPS” but Apple prohibited developers from using the phone for “real time route guidance”)

Wireless hot spots are hot – The EVO easily converts into a wireless hot spot that up to 8 computers can connect to securely. This has become a critical business tool for group meetings where internet access isn’t available due to security or lack of access. There is an additional charge of $30/month to use the hot spot feature, but it’s well worth it for business travelers.

Bigger screen – The new Apple iPhone can tout screen resolution sizes, but the physical screen size is the same 3.5 inch screen. It may not seem like much, but the 4.3 inch EVO screen makes a definite difference. I think it’s much easier to read than the iPhone. In addition, the body width of email and internet articles easily snap to the width of the EVO screen regardless how much you zoom in. No more scrolling back and forth on the iPhone.

Weakness of the EVO

Learning a different way - I’ve seen and heard a number of concerns raised that the Android OS is not as intuitive as the iPhone. I’m not sure if it’s not as intuitive as much as it is just plain different. If you are accustomed to using the iPhone, you have to unlearn the iPhone way before grasping the Android way of using your phone. It’s the same difference going from a Mac to a PC… it takes awhile to get use to it.

Battery life – with my moderate use, the shorter battery life of the EVO barely gets by for me. Like many business people, my PC is my primary email interface and I’m just about able to get through a day without having to plug in my EVO. I do keep wifi and GPS turned off when it’s not needed which is a significant factor of battery life. For people who live on their mobile phones, battery life is a legitimate issue… just not for me.

Keyboard – the keyboard on the EVO (and all Android phones) is not as well laid out as it is with the iPhone. I’m still getting accustomed to it but I recall having to get use to the iPhone keyboard when I first got it.

So that’s my list of reasons… can you think of any criteria for business use I missed?

The Cleveland Plain Dealer admitted today that it’s companion site, Cleveland.com, unveiled the identity of an anonymous poster which in turn exposed a potential conflict of interest for a local judge. Some of the anonymous posts referenced cases covered by the judge. According to the Plain Dealer, it was the judge’s daughter who used her mother’s email address to set up her anonymous account on Cleveland.com.

Both the paper and the site are touting the deliberate privacy violation as an “ethical debate”.

There isn’t a debate at all. Regardless of the seediness of a judge’s daughter commenting on mom’s court cases (if that is all it really was),  The Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com had no business at all investigating who is posting comments on the site unless there is a compelling legal reason to do so. While it might make for an interesting story in the paper, there was no public interest or compelling legal reason to disclose the anonymous poster.

Still, this from Plain Dealer Editor Susan Goldberg:

“You can argue we should not have uncovered lawmiss’ identity,” Goldberg said in an interview, “and maybe we shouldn’t have. But once we did, I don’t know how you can pretend you don’t know that information. How can you put that genie back in the bottle?

This is an unbelievably dumb comment from a newspaper editor who understands all too well that journalists regularly expect anonymity for their sources. No, the paper shouldn’t have investigated who is leaving anonymous posts… and no, the only “genie in the bottle” is one that the paper created. Justifying it this way is a nonsensical, circular argument. Compounding this failure is Goldberg herself: she is a newspaper veteran from San Jose and knows the technology universe all too well from covering Silicon Valley. It’s hard to believe she of all people doesn’t understand the intersection between technology, privacy and journalism.

It’s also commercial suicide.

Newspapers are struggling to transition their business to the online universe where building a community is paramount to their success. Building that community entails trust that is built between the site and the participants of the site. The Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com willfully violated that trust.

Just received this email from HDS:

2 March 2010

Dear Valued Partner, Due to the recent acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle Corporation, there has been much speculation as to the effect the merger will have on the market, product offerings and partnerships. As you are aware, Hitachi Data Systems and Sun Microsystems have enjoyed a successful business partnership. On March 31, 2010, the current distribution agreement that Hitachi Data Systems and Sun Microsystems have been jointly operating under for the past nine years will come to an end. This relationship has given our partners access to industry-leading storage solutions built on Hitachi technology on which many of the world’s top enterprises have come to rely. With the acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle agree that the time is right to evolve this relationship into one reflecting the priorities of the new company. We are jointly determining the positioning of the products and solutions based on Hitachi Data Systems that you have deployed with clients. We understand you and your customers have questions and concerns surrounding service obligations to the global install base moving forward. Hitachi Data Systems will be answering all questions and concerns with solid transition programs and will focus on meeting the demands of the continued excitement in the marketplace around the Hitachi Data Systems technology and the unique leading edge solutions that the Hitachi Data Systems brand has, and will continue to bring to market. These solutions will continue to be made available to you and your customers under the Hitachi Data Systems brand name. Details will be forthcoming on programs and processes that will help guide you and your customers, as we transition this business moving forward. A new chapter is here, and Hitachi Data Systems sees great opportunities for you that will materialize in the market. Protecting, developing and growing your business is our top priority. Thank you.

This is an interview Simon Seagrave (techhead.co.uk) and I did with Gary Thome, HP Vice President and Chief Architect of Infrastructure Software and Blades at the HP Blades Day last week in Houston.

Just days after Larry Dignan at ZDnet Blogs identified serious disclosure problems for InfoWorld, a new controversy is about to snare three more online publications. Apparently Information Week, Tech Target and Network Computing have been publishing posts by storage analyst George Crump with little or no disclosure about his paid affiliation with vendors. The most serious charge is against Network Computing where “sponsored” posts for EMC Data Domain appeared on Crump’s personal site while he blogged about EMC Data Domain on Network Computing the same day. None of the publications in question list specific vendor disclosure information for Crump.

On a December 16, 2009 blog post, Crump posted a positive review of Data Domain titled “Deduplicating Replication – Data Domain” on Network Computing.

The very same day, Crump posted an article “sponsored” by Data Domain on his own site, storage-switzerland.com.

Just today, Crump has posted another article, “What is Deduplication,” which is also sponsored by Data Domain on his site.

The clear problem here is disclosure. Nowhere on the Network Computing blog post is there a disclosure that Crump has been (and still is) being paid by Data Domain. In fact, none of his posts for Information Week, Tech Target (Search Storage) and Network Computing cite a disclosure identifying specific vendors who might be compensating Crump. In his posts for Information Week, there is a link back to Crump’s own site with an extremely vague disclosure:

While technology assessments of Storage Switzerland, LLC are neutral, we do receive compensation from IT solutions vendors, integrators, and users of those solutions. However, we accept no compensation from any company until we have properly vetted a technology.

In an exchange on Twitter this afternoon between Tim Masters of StorageMonkeys.com and Mike Fratto, editor of Network Computing, Fratto claims that his “bloggers disclose as needed per blog”.

UPDATE: Now posted under Crump’s Network Computing blog post, “Deduplicating Replication – Data Domain”

–Editors note–
2/23/2010 It has come to our attention that at the time this story was posted, George Crump was doing business with EMC. As he was doing a series of interviews with all the storage deduplication vendors I didn’t feel this was a conflict nor upon review of this article and discussions with Crump, do I think this article is biased. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have added this note. In addition, George Crump in his role at Storage Switzerland has on going business relationships with various vendors in the storage and deduplication marketplace. Any failure to disclose is my mistake, not Crumps.