The lead article in today’s New York Times, “$12 Billion Deal will Put Google in Mobile Market,” describes a groundbreaking development in the Internet industry, the takeover of Motorola cell phones by Google. The deal helps Google and consumers in several ways — by creating a new player in smartphones, it potentially opens up the field to innovation and new competition. For those who claim that Google is too big already, it must be noted that the merger is unlikely to be blocked on antitrust grounds because the two companies are not in the same industry, even though the two fields are related.

The deal does provide some stiff competition to Apple, and that’s a good thing. And it allows Google to stave off a large number of patent infringement cases because Motorola has its own stable of patents that wil help to defend against them.

Google has also pledged to continue providing its software to other cell phone companies, and the CEO of Motorola will remain, allowing the company to operate in a semi-independent fashion. The world of the Internet undergoes constant innovation, and in measuring any deal, one must evaluate whether it increases the possibility for breakthroughs or decreases them. This merger definitely falls into the former case.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “FTC Backs Plan to Honor Privacy of Online Users,” describes a great plan for online consumers in which the government would maintain a “do not track” list in the same way it currently uses the do-not-call registry to shield people from telemarketing calls.

In fact, the current problem of online advertising is even worse than telemarketing because much of the research of buying habits occurs surreptitiously without the consumer’s knowledge, and sophisticated profiles are created based on a person’s online behavior over many years. The current system of industry “self-regulation” has clearly not worked.

The recommendations were contained in a 79-page report, and browser-makers, including Google and Internet Explorer, reacted “cautiously.” Internet Explorer claimed that its features, such as InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering, accomplished the same effect, but they have to be reactivated at the beginning of each browsing session.

Whether Congress has the capacity to enact anything like a “do not track” option similar to the do not call registry, especially given the current paralysis, remains very much in doubt. The Republicans, due to their coziness with all sorts of business interests, are unlikely to allow much-needed regulation of this industry at a time when they are resisting common-sense measures for all sorts of initiatives.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. is Working to Ease Wiretaps on the Internet,” describes a power grab by the F.B.I. to develop legislation that would manadate all Internet communications technologies to provide a methodology for wiretaps from a central hub.

The legislation is being vociferously challenged by Internet advocates who view it as an attack on the decentralized nature of the Internet and impossible to enforce due to the large number of foreign providers. It is also opposed because it will stifle innovation and the development of new devices; preoccupy engineers with wiretap capabilities instead of new features; and lead to the creation of holes that can be exploited by hackers.

The freedom enabled by the Internet has been under attack from other, more authoritarian societies for some time now. China continues to try to clamp down on the Internet, developing “fixes” for foreign companies to install to allow top-down monitoring. And Dubai recently clashed with Blackberry because its encrypted messages are difficult to intercept. How ironic would it be if the United States developed technology that enabled these governments to control their own citizenry?

You know what? I think the F.B.I. should adapt to the decentralized nature of the Internet just like the rest of us. They need to work around the Internet instead of imposing top-down control over it. They need to live with the decentralized capability, and new-found power, this technology gives to the average citizen and develop other law enforcement techniques instead of attacking one of the greatest developments for mankind since the printing press.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic,” describes a recent ruling that gives more power to Internet service providers (ISPs) to control the services they offer and at what price.

Though the company involved, Comcast, said it had no plans to abandon an open Internet, the ruling could affect President Obama’s policy of “net neutrality” and a plan to increase access to high-speed Internet service, particularly in rural areas.

Net neutrality means that all Internet content should be treated equally by network providers, and this principle seems rooted in free speech principles enshrined in the Constitution.

However, Republicans, who have supported Comcast,  seem more concerned with corporate freedom than that of the people. This case is a telling revelation of where true Republican sympathies lie, despite all their recent rhetoric.

Internet companies could easily abuse their new found freedom to violate the principles of the Internet rather than maintain them, and the F.C.C. has vowed to find new avenues to regulate and enforce net neutrality. The issue involves maintaining the freedom of the Internet and the smaller content provider instead of the freedom of large ISPs like Comcast.

The court ruling was described as narrow and case-specific so the Internet is still free … for now.