If you were online in 1996, you remember some of the anything-is-possible topsy-turvy feelings. But more important, I think, is the history of thought that accompanies any potent tech advance; where zealous practitioners say: this changes everything. Like this, at the dawn of radio:

Ditto, concurred a colleague: “Let a legislator now commit himself to some policy that is obviously senseless, and the editorial writers must first proclaim his imbecility to the community. But let the radiophone in the legislative halls of the future flash his absurdities into space and the whole state hears them at once.”

Obviously it didn’t work out that way; and it would be easy to get cynical, and say that nothing is ever any different, which is the same kind of stupid dichotomous thinking that causes a lot of the problems that surround us every day. A rule of thumb is that no technology is likely to change the essence of human nature; but human nature can be, and is, tweaked all the time. So it’s interesting to see how many times these utopian prognostications have been made, and what they’ve been made about. And what has really been changed, and what hasn’t.

Congress has failed to pass legislation regarding so-called “Net Neutrality,” and now the issue is again top of mind as Internet providers seeking preferential treatment; network operators considering a tiered approach, and once-staunch defenders beginning to soften their stance on the matter. This time, it appears Google (NSDQ: GOOG), which has been traditional a huge advocate of network equality and openness, is working behind the scenes with major cable and phone companies to get its Internet traffic prioritized,according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Maybe there are more plugged in people on the blog who know what’s going on with this?

UPDATE:  From the blog Obsidian Wings:

 Google is now saying the WSJ got the story wrong. What Google is seeking, it claims, is to improve service by linking caching servers within broadband providers’ facilities (essentially making service faster by moving Google servers closer to you — that’s not a perfect explanation though, so spare me techies). According to Richard Whitt (Google’s chief DC lobbying dude), the WSJ just doesn’t understand caching. He adds:

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday’s Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

The world is full of those mysteries.

If you’ve wondered any of those things, or a host of other things, like what Artificial Intelligence is or might be, how humans might be enhanced by technology and how that might affect society, and, in the very large view, how modern life is mutating under technological onslaught, if any of this piques your curiosity I can heartily endorse this book, by Vernor Vinge and a host of essayists:

In re-reading this I see that I’ve completely mis-characterized the book. Well, you fucking try it: it’s a book about technology and culture and what happens when you start connecting people together. Except that sounds dry and boring and if you’ve retained any vestige of intellectual curiosity the book is neither.

Now I sound antagonistic. God damn it. Just read the book. On the new rating system, where I not only take note of _when_ I finished a book, but also rate it from 1 to 5, this book garnered the first five.

On a related note, a popular cliche has been floating around since the dawn of time that says: science fiction is about predicting the future. The slightly-less-but-still-cliched response is that science fiction isn’t about predicting the future, it’s about predicting the present. Well, if anyone ever asks you for the author most gob-smackingly superb at predicting both the present and the future make sure you direct that person to Vernor Vinge.