Don't miss the Financial Times' excellent editorial opposing net neutrality regulation/legislation.

They clearly grasp that net neutrality is not a pressing problem, recognize that net neutrality regulation/legislation would cause unintended consequences, and that regulators are up to the task, if a real problem were in fact to materialize.    

Count me as very impressed and grateful for the innovation focus by Google for improving Internet accessibility for the blind and sight-impaired.

This kind of commitment to focus technology innovation to promote more 'open access' to the Internet for those with sight, hearing or other disabilities can be embraced, and is to be commended, by everyone.

I recommend you read an excellent Sunday New York Times piece by Miguel Helft: "Going where no guide dog can." 

• It profiles Mr. T.V. Raman, a Google computer scientist who is focused on innovations to improve use of the Internet by the blind, the sight impaired, and even sighted people when they cannot see a computer or smartphone screen. 
• It is obvious to see that the many innovations Mr. Raman and Google have produced or facilitiated, eventually will help tens of millions of blind and sight-impaired people around the world gain access to technology and information in ways and amounts that they never could before. Well done.

Precursorblog is on hiatus for vacation.

The content and applications industries have yet to connect-the-dots of the U.S. Department of Justice concluding search advertising is a monopoly and that Google has pro-actively sought to further its monopoly in search advertising and search advertising syndication.  

• The long term implications of this DOJ conclusion are sweeping and profound for content and apps providers.  

Simply, if the DOJ believes Google is a monopoly, then it follows that DOJ would believe it is illegal under antitrust law for Google to proactively disadvantage its competitors’ content/applications by favoring Google-owned content/applications over competitors’ content/applications on Google’s search advertising monopoly platform.

There are three anti-net neutrality regulation op-eds to note.

The best is in the Wall Street Journal column by Gordon Crovitz "Net Neutrality? Never Mind."

• Mr. Crovitz gets that this is embarassingly misunderstood issue and that there is an essential need to manage networks and incent investment in networks to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for bandwidth.

Stephen Wildstrom of Business Week has an excellent post: "Network Neutrality -- Where's the Beef"  where he brutally gets to the crux of "the problem."

I consider one of the most troublesome aspects of the broader "open" movement for an Open Internet, net neutrality, free culture, and unauthorized tracking online, is the core Internet ethos that one should "ask for forgiveness, not permission." This ethos also goes by "innovation without permission."

This perverse Internet ethos can turn true Internet freedom on its head in that it self-servingly justifies one unilaterally usurping the freedom of others -- their freedom from harm, freedom of privacy, or freedom of safety.

• In other words, it is an irresponsible ethos where one can do whatever one wants on the Internet, and if people object, just ask for forgiveness and stop doing it. 

The problem is that the proverbial bell can't be un-rung on the Internet because with caching and the viral nature of linking, once a harm or an invasion of privacy is done on the Internet -- it can't fully be undone. 

Kudos to Louis Trager and Washington Internet Daily for an excellent two-page cover story: "Lessig says he doesn't put faith in Google" -- which provides fresh evidence that the net neutrality movement is not as united as they portray themselves to be. 

• It will be interesting to see if either Google or Professor Lessig flame the Washington Internet Daily for being "confused" or "wrong" like they did when the WSJ wrote a cover story indicating the net neutrality movement may not all be on the same page.   

It appears significant that Professor Lessig is shifting his professional focus to promoting a Change Congress agenda fighting corporate influence of corporations in Washington, from his decade-long crusade for free culture and later net neutrality.

"A 'Cyber Katrina' is inevitable" according to George Foresman, a former Undersecretary  for Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security.

I strongly urge you to read an outstanding, sobering and succinct post by USA Today's Byron Acohido: "Cyber Katrina is upon us" which:

• concludes "Cyber threats are accelerating;"
• highlights 8 "proof points" from respected Internet security sources that highlight "a continual increase in malicious and criminal activity on the Internet."

Byron Acohido adds:

WSJ columnist Gordon Cravitz rightfully focuses in this week's  column on the fact that "Internet attacks are a real and growing problem."

• Cravitz notes "...that system of open protocols brings the enormous benefits of the Web to civilian life. But the Web has also become an open field for cyber warriors seeking to harm the U.S."
• He spotlights a new cybersecurity commission report  by CSIS that soberly concludes cybersecurity is a "battle we are losing."

Has the obsession for Internet "openness" resulted in turning a collective blind eye to cybersecurity? 

Kudos to John Paczkowski of the Wall Street Journal's Digital Daily blog for a interesting big picture perspective on Google's evolution. Don't miss it.