Here’s a video of comic Louis CK, in an appearance with television talk show host Conan O’Brien, which was flagged to me by Tech N’ Marketing blogger Hillel Fuld as the all-time funniest.

And it indeed is, due to Louis CK’s perfect riff on technology, in which he correctly notes “everything is amazing right now and nobody is happy.”

My fave part is his observation of how impatient people are with their cell phone connections: “It’s going to space, can you give it a second to get back from space?”

Well said, especially with all the various controversies around Apple (AAPL), Facebook and more.

In both hardware and software, [the iPhone4] is a major leap over its already-excellent predecessor, the iPhone 3GS.

It has some downsides and limitations–most important, the overwhelmed AT&T network in the U.S., which, in my tests, the new phone handled sometimes better and, unfortunately, sometimes worse than its predecessor….But, overall, Apple has delivered a big, well-designed update that, in my view, keeps it in the lead in the smartphone wars….

The most important downside of the iPhone 4 is that, in the U.S., it’s shackled to AT&T, which not only still operates a network that has trouble connecting and maintaining calls in many cities, but now has abandoned unlimited, flat-rate data plans. Apple needs a second network.

Both Apple and AT&T told me they worked to make the iPhone 4 do a better job with AT&T’s network. For example, the phone itself is surrounded by a prominent stainless-steel trim piece that acts as a large antenna. And Apple said it also tuned the phone to try to grab whatever band on the network was less congested or less affected by interference–to stress the quality of a signal over its raw strength. AT&T said it, too, made some changes to its network with the new iPhone in mind.

But, in my tests, network reception was a mixed bag.

– Walt Mossberg, The Wall Street Journal

[The iPhone 4] is not the first phone with both a front and back camera. It’s not even the first one to make video calls. But the iPhone 4 is the first phone to make good video calls, reliably, with no sign-up or setup, with a single tap. The picture and audio are rock solid, with very little delay, and it works the first time and every time….Now, the iPhone is no longer the undisputed king of app phones. In particular, the technically inclined may find greater flexibility and choice among its Android rivals, like the HTC Incredible and Evo. They’re more complicated, and their app store not as good, but they’re loaded with droolworthy features like turn-by-turn GPS instructions, speech recognition that saves you typing, removable batteries and a choice of cell networks. If what you care about, however, is size and shape, beauty and battery life, polish and pleasure, then the iPhone 4 is calling your name.

– David Pogue, New York Times

The new iPhone 4 I’ve been testing for about a week and a half–along with the major refresh of the mobile operating system software at the core of recent models–demonstrates once again why Apple’s handset is the one to beat, even as it faces fierce competition from phones based on Google’s Android platform, among others….Critics are left with reasons to whine. Apple’s public dissing of Adobe Flash means you’ll still come upon Web video sites that don’t make nice with the iPhone. I had a few dropped calls. The battery still isn’t user-replaceable, and there’s no slot for expanding memory.

– Ed Baig, USA Today

We’re not going to beat around the bush–in our approximation, the iPhone 4 is the best smartphone on the market right now. The combination of gorgeous new hardware, that amazing display, upgraded cameras, and major improvements to the operating system make this an extremely formidable package. Yes, there are still pain points that we want to see Apple fix, and yes, there are some amazing alternatives to the iPhone 4 out there. But when it comes to the total package–fit and finish in both software and hardware, performance, app selection, and all of the little details that make a device like this what it is–we think it’s the cream of the current crop. We won’t argue that a lot of this is a matter of taste–some people will just prefer the way Android or Symbian works to the iPhone, and others will be on the lookout for a hardware keyboard or a particular asset that the iPhone 4 lacks–but in terms of the total picture, it’s tough to deny that Apple has moved one step past the competition with this phone.

– Josh Topolsky, Engadget

The fourth incarnation of Apple’s iPhone is an incrementally improved, familiar device–not a new kind of device, as was the case with the recent introduction of iPad. Yes, the notable features with iPhone 4–both the device and the iOS4, which came out yesterday in advance of the iPhone itself–are mostly tweaks. But what tweaks they are: Apple’s focus on improvement is as much key to the quality of its products as innovation. But there’s one flaw it doesn’t improve: the poor quality of calls placed over AT&T, which remains the iPhone’s only U.S. carrier….AT&T still sucks, and the best engineering out of Cupertino won’t change that.

– Xeni Jardin, BoingBoing

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

What in the world can one make of the new ad for the Droid, the Motorola (MOT) smartphone with Google (GOOG) Android software on the Verizon Wireless (VZ) network, which apparently put out this commercial?

Here’s what: It aggressively calls the Apple (AAPL) iPhone a dumb blonde and then a prissy dude in need of a beatdown.

Let’s put it this way: The 30-second clip makes Glenn Beck look like Gloria Steinem and Adam Lambert combined!

Earlier advertising for the Droid has been clearly aimed at the he-man demographic, with a beer-commercial tone and a growly-voiced announcer.

So what? That’s marketing 101. But this one–titled “Pretty”–goes entirely too far.

“Should a phone be pretty?” it begins, using an odd series of images that is packed full of random misogyny. “Should it be a tiara-wearing, digitally clueless beauty pageant queen?”

Then comes all the manly imagery–a racehorse, a powerfully pointed Scud missile, bananas and buzzsaws to represent the Droid. A surging missile, as well as several creamy explosions too. Get it?

And let’s not forget the bunch of fey, effeminately-dressed mannequins, with one getting bashed with an ink-filled ball thrown by some tough masked thug with the line, “Is it a precious porcelain figurine of a phone?”

Then back to anti-women name-calling, saying an iPhone is a “princess,” unlike the Droid, “a phone that trades hair-do for can-do.”

It is true that sometime a phone ad is just a phone ad–but, in this case, sometimes it’s just appalling. It would be funny, if it weren’t so mean-spirited.

But, please, you be the judge of the video of the television commercial, which is on Verizon Wireless’ YouTube site:

In an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about an alliance being discussed between Facebook and Nokia, came news about the pair working on a deal to deeply integrate the hot social network with the handsets of the world’s largest maker of mobile phones.

Although BoomTown has seen this movie before–a similar mobile deal with a Nokia (NOK) investment in Facebook was being bandied about a year ago–expect more noise than ever when it comes to social-networking sites and mobile devices in 2009.

As you can see from the chart below, Facebook ran past MySpace in the number of unique visitors via mobile phone in the early fall of 2008 and kept climbing.

Said the Journal article: “In December, Facebook had seven million U.S. mobile users, compared with MySpace’s 5.7 million, according to Nielsen Co.” (Full disclosure: MySpace is owned by News Corp. (NWS), which also owns Dow Jones, the owner of this site.)

And, indeed, to get this kind of traction, Facebook has been very busy ferreting away to get a presence on all the big cellphone makers, so far mostly by building its popular Facebook application for smartphones like the BlackBerry from Research in Motion (RIMM) and iPhone from Apple (AAPL).

Facebook–the Journal piece said–has also been talking to Palm (PALM), which will launch its new Pre smartphone in the spring, and Motorola (MOT), about being integrated into their operating systems too.

The race to be present on mobile devices by everyone and their Internet mother has gotten all hopped up with the introduction of so many smartphones of late, since these devices make any Web app experience much better.

And consumer uptake of these kinds of phones, with big screens and multitouch capabilities, is widely expected to dramatically increase over the next five years,

But here is the dicey money–or nonmoney, actually–quote from the article:

“As with most of the cellphone-software industry, Facebook has yet to find a way to generate meaningful revenue from its mobile services, which include text-messaging features, a mobile Web site and downloadable software. But the number of users accessing its site from phones has grown.”

Oh dear–that roughly translates in Facebook-speak to friending without benefits, with costs rising without much (or any) revenue coming in, to speak of.

Of course, many would argue that both Facebook and MySpace, as well other big players, have to still play hard in the mobile market to gain users–given that consumers are on the move more than ever, digitally-speaking–even if it takes a while to see financial results.

So while efforts by mobile advertising services, such as AdMob, are trying to make that happen and are definitely promising, it’s still a game of growth and not revenue or, of course, profits.

[T-shirt image, courtesy of Zazzle.]

[Updated with new details about deal, including who worked on it and info on a cash component.]

About three weeks ago, Facebook and Twitter ended several weeks of serious talks, in which Facebook was offering to acquire Twitter for $500 million of its stock, which also included a cash component.

While rumors of Facebook’s interest were brought up in an interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the Web 2.0 Summit a few weeks ago, some shot down the idea as silly.

Quite incorrectly, as it turns out, since top execs at both Facebook and Twitter were right then at the tail end of discussions, which were initiated by the privately held Facebook in mid-October, about bringing the two together.

Those talks, sources on both sides said, are now over.

So why did the deal break down?

Well, as is usually the case, over price–was $500 million worth of Facebook stock actually worth $500 million?–and the typical concerns about integration and costs.

But, more important, it seems, was a feeling among Twitter investors and execs that the start-up should still take a shot at building its revenues–there are none right now–as well as it had done at building its growth.

“It’s more about timing,” said one person familiar with Twitter’s motivations. “There is a strong feeling that there is still an opportunity–even with the economic downturn–to blow this thing out.”

Still, combining the world’s fastest-growing social-networking site with what is quickly becoming the best-known microblogging service is actually a natural fit.

That’s especially true given that Facebook–for all its powerful online social connections–has seen Twitter race past it in innovating in the “status update” arena.

While some sources at Facebook said Zuckerberg was becoming frustrated by the buzz Twitter was getting–a market that should have been dominated by Facebook–others at the company said he was interested in buying Twitter because of his respect for its progress.

Indeed, at the Web 2.0 interview, Zuckerberg called Twitter an “elegant model” and said that he was “really impressed by what they’ve done.”

Indeed, with about six million registrations, as reported in October, up 600 percent over the last year, the San Francisco-based Twitter–launched in 2006–has had impressive growth.

(It has also been plagued by technical issues, which are–to be fair–decreasing.)

In any case, for those not familiar with it, the premise of Twitter is dead simple: A registered user logs in via the Internet or a mobile phone and answers the “What are you doing?” question the service asks in only 140 characters or fewer.

It’s quite a clever idea, although–so far–not a money-making one.

To try to goose that, Twitter’s board replaced the engineer who created Twitter, Jack Dorsey, with another founder, Evan Williams, who had served as its chairman and chief product officer.

The more experienced Williams (pictured here) had already built one company–Pyra Labs, which created the Blogger blogging service–that he sold to Google in 2003. He also started the audio and video search site Odeo, where Twitter was actually born.

Still, its investors have not come down on Twitter to hold back its growth efforts, and have handed over $20 million to the start-up so far. In its last round, Twitter was valued at $98 million.

Its funders include: Union Square Ventures, Charles River Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital and Bezos Expeditions, backed by Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

In addition, well-known Silicon Valley figures, such as Marc Andreessen and Ron Conway, have also invested. Interestingly, Andreessen is also on Facebook’s board.

Other private investors include FeedBurner Co-Founder (and now Googler) Dick Costolo, former Epinions Co-Founder Naval Ravikant and former Googler Chris Sacca.

Twitter needs all the investors it can get, since it has no revenue, although it has been exploring things like charging business customers and adding advertising into the consumer service.

Lack of revenues was an issue for Facebook, said sources, especially related to fees Twitter pays for delivery of its messages to cellphones.

While the issue has been manageable in the U.S., Twitter cut off its SMS support in some international markets this summer because of too-high costs.

But, if Twitter was offered to Facebook’s 120 million users, Facebook execs estimated that it might have to deal with huge SMS fees–up to $75 million annually.

“Facebook has its own revenue-generating challenges,” said one person close to the company. “As much as Twitter would give them a lift in the status area, it was still a worry.”

Not enough, said several sources, to stop Facebook from making another approach at some point in the future. “We’d hate to see Twitter go to another company,” said one source.

Indeed, while all are even more price-conscious than Facebook, large companies that could also be interested include: Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), Microsoft (MSFT) or a large telecom company, such as Verizon (VZ).

If it had completed the deal to buy Twitter, it would have been Facebook’s most significant acquisition by far.

Zuckerberg and Williams did meet and get along well, but the deal was primarily negotiated by Spark Capital partner Bijan Sabet (Spark is a Twitter investor) and Facebook deal guy Dan Rose.

But in this time, at least, the Twitter side was still not interested in selling at the price Facebook had offered.

The $500 million offered was in an all-stock form, said sources on both sides, at the $15 billion valuation that came from the Microsoft’s investment in the company last October.

The Twitter side felt that figure was inflated and the shares should be valued at the lower figures that have also been reported for Facebook’s true valuation, more in the $5 billion range.

That would have given the deal a $150 million price tag, which was seen as too low, especially since it was in Facebook stock and not cash initially.

In fact, Twitter wanted cash, which some sources say was offered by Facebook in the $50 to $100 million range, in addition to stock, but taking too much stock was still a major issue.

There are other ways the pair could have approximated a safer choice for Twitter, via warrants, of course, or other methods.

But, said several sources close to Twitter, the primary reason for not selling was because its board simply did not want to yet or perhaps ever.

Said one source: “The question is, is it really a good idea to sell on the first chance you get?”

Well, for Twitter, we’ll just have to wait and see about that, of course.

[Photo of Evan Williams by Joi Ito. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 By-Attribution license.]

While there are rumors that these wildly popular videos of a posse of cellphones popping popcorn by their rings or other unknown death rays are fixed, BoomTown actually does not care one iota, as the remote possibility that they are not is freaking me out.

Frankly, it would freak Orville Redenbacher out too.

But they are still riveting.

Here are a few choice ones with an international flair:

From Japan:

From France:

From the United States:

(Click on the image to make it larger.)

They’re onstage at an event called the Israel Business Conference, put on by an Israeli business publication called Globes.

Walt was interviewed by Vardi. At one point, he noted: “In 10 years, I believe that most readers will be online. I assume that’s already true for my readers. I hope that our paper will be in good shape.”

We do too, but–just in case–don’t miss this amazing online Mossblog that Walt did from Israel called “Peace in the Mideast, With Great Cellphone Coverage.”

My favorite line about Walt’s travels between Israel and Jordan:

In both countries, even in the middle of barely populated stretches of desert, my iPhone had perfect voice coverage from multiple carriers. How come AT&T can’t guarantee the same level of service on the same phone even in the middle of some major American cities?”

So what does Google really want from its upcoming current bid for wireless spectrum? Oh, you have no idea the extent of their nefarious machinations!

Click on the image to make it bigger:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

What to think of the announcement yesterday that Verizon will open itself up to consumers who want to use non-Verizon-sold phones for their wireless service?

Was it a bold way to thwart new rivals, like Google and Apple, who are promising–but have yet to deliver–a world without the fascist rule of the “Soviet ministries,” as Walt Mossberg has called the cellphone carriers, with new phones, networks and software?

Or perhaps a clever PR feint by the U.S.’s No. 2 carrier to get regulators (and consumers) off its back as an auction looms for new wireless spectrum, in which Google convinced the Federal Communications Commission to set aside some for a new open network?

Or maybe more consumer confusion, since pricing is unclear and Verizon’s CDMA technology is not compatible with more GSM networks?

Or maybe, just maybe, it means the American market–long held hostage by the onerous rules of companies like Verizon–might finally be like the rest of the world and let consumers make their own choices about the phones and perhaps software they want to use?

Well, we have absolutely no idea, since we’ll believe it when we see it and when other carriers follow suit. Right now, most seem to love their consumer-trapping walled garden approach, through which they think they are protecting consumers from the wilds of the more democratic wireless world.

Thanks boys, but we can handle it, I think.

Nonetheless, others weighed in on the move, although with different takes:

Lowell McAdam, president and chief executive officer of Verizon Wireless;: “This is a transformation point in the 20-year history of mass market wireless devices–one which we believe will set the table for the next level of innovation and growth.”

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin: “Wireless customers should be able to use the wireless device of their choice and download whatever software they want onto it.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt: “As the Internet has demonstrated, open models create better services for consumers and stronger businesses for providers.”

Microsoft Corp. Senior Vice President of the Mobile Communications Business Pieter Knook: “Microsoft is very excited to see Verizon Wireless make such a bold move to satisfy the demands of wireless consumers. As people’s mobile needs become more sophisticated and varied, they will require smarter and more adaptable mobile devices. We are proud to support any open access that puts more power in people’s hands to connect them to the information they want when and where they want it.”

Silicon Alley Insider’s Dan Frommer: “Verizon’s announcement will be more meaningful in a few years when more devices–not just cellphones–use wireless data networks.”

Valleywag’s Owen Thomas: “But Verizon’s latest move shows that it’s not that the phone companies are resistant to the idea of openness. They oppose, rather, the notion that Google should get to set the rules for competition–rules that will no doubt smooth the way for the sale of mobile advertising on terms favorable to Google’s offerings.”

TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld: “You didn’t think Verizon was just going to let Google waltz right in and take its customers for a spin, did you? But if Verizon doesn’t make it easy for developers and unaffiliated device manufacturers to get onto its network, it could end up tripping over its own feet.”

Infectious Greed’s Paul Kedrosky: “In practice, what does it really mean? It’s tough to say and the announcement is short on specifics. For now, color me encouraged, but highly skeptical until we have more than some PR puffery. Will they really let you hook up your own GPS device, wireless data thingie, etc., with no additional fees assuming you have an account? I find that hard to believe, but hey, I can be convinced.”

GigaOm’s Om Malik: “Do we really believe that Verizon is going to be happy being Pipes-R-Us?”

Well, that–at least–we don’t believe.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

So let’s just all agree to suspend the will-they-or-won’t-they speculation over the much rumored GPhone from Google.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kevin Delaney and Amol Sharma wrote a nice wrap-up yesterday of the plans by the search giant to create a mobile handset.

And why not, especially since a lot of growth in advertising is expected to come from the mobile market in the future, as more robust phones arrive and are used for even more computing by the average user. Now mobile ads sales are in the paltry $1.5 billion range annually, but it’s predicted to be going to almost $15 billion only a few years from now.

The GPhones, however they are made and sold, would also presumably carry all the various Google applications (like search and mail) that have been popping up on other handsets, the most recent example being Google mapping services on Apple’s iPhone.

As Google CEO Eric Schmidt said as much in secret business code to Walt Mossberg in an interview he did in May at the D5 conference (the video of the entire interview is embedded below): “What’s interesting about the ads in the mobile phone is that they are twice as profitable or more than the non-mobile phone ads because they’re more personal.”

Translated: We’re jumping in with our big feet asap!

And Google’s recent activity in the upcoming wireless-spectrum license auction by the government should pretty much put to rest any other doubts, given it could eventually allow it to turn into a phone company.

And, oh yeah, they hired phone guru and Sidekick creator Andy Rubin a while back. And you don’t have to be a psychic to know he–wait for it–is working on a phone.

Because he is.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

While Jackson runs a small operation, he uses his Web site, YouTube videos, posting to wikis and other online tools in his effort to build a small group of disgruntled investors and offer a “Plan B.”

Zander, who appeared at our D3 conference, might want to be careful. Jackson craftily asked Semel at the Yahoo meeting–see my post on it here and the video from it below–whether he had the “fire in the belly” to continue as CEO at the troubled Internet giant. At the meeting, Semel answered with a hearty yes, but was gone soon after.

As of yesterday, Jackson now has a lot more fodder in his fight with the telecommunications-equipment maker, when Motorola warned of weak shipments of cellphones and said its mobile-devices division would lose money for the year.

With the stock in the tank, management turmoil, a lackluster product line and rumors of a Zander exit, let us not forget the recent explosive launch of the iPhone to cause even more agita at the company.

But let Jackson take it from here with his recent video on Motorola, followed by mine from the Yahoo board meeting in June:

I snipped my copper umbilical cord one sunny weekday not long ago.

Canceling my land-line phone account, cutting off service to my home for good and rendering the telephones that had long sat on tables in every room as useless as my closeted bread machine, I took the final step in a lifelong attempt to free myself from the wires that tethered me.

Casting my fate to the heavens, quite literally, I decided to go wireless. Completely wireless. All wireless, all the time, everywhere.

My decision was a rash one prompted by a billing dispute with the local phone company, but it soon turned into a telephonic jihad that left me transformed. Equipped with two cell phones–one for work and another for home–I like to think of myself as a kind of 21st-century digital pioneer, ready to network, fax, page, e-mail and–oh, yes–talk at will.

But the Plains, as we all know from American history, are littered with the skeletons of pioneers. Likewise, forging one’s way through this new, digital world doesn’t come without major bumps and twists. My own all-cellular journey is strewn with technical glitches and innumerable lost connections, pricey millisecond charges that make using a cell phone seem like a bad addiction and vague worries that perhaps too much cell-phone exposure actually does cause brain tumors. Then, of course, there is the matter of etiquette–the constant slings and arrows from the uncellulared masses, not to mention Miss Manners.

Worth Everything

But for the wireless-obsessed like me, the unfettered freedom and knowledge that I am accessible 24/7, that I can reach anyone from anywhere at anytime and they can reach me, is worth everything.

It all happened, I confess, because of a now-paid bill. But my long walk down the digital path began much earlier, with a childhood enriched by scratchy walkie-talkies and a lifelong aversion to suspiciously dirty pay phones–the kind that inexplicably cut you off with the clink of a coin.

Things got under way in earnest in the 1980s, when as a young reporter bound to a newsroom I first flirted with pagers. But these odd little hockey pucks were simply too slow, and not nearly as interactive as I desired. So, as soon as I could, I moved through a series of clunky cell phones, the first about as portable as an extra-large bowling ball. Most of the time, because their heft gave me backaches, I remained immobile, making calls from my car sitting as still as I would have at home. Later, I had one installed in the car itself, only to find that while pecking out calls on the tiny numeric pad I’d veer across the highway, a cellular drunk.

In the early 1990s, cell phones came down in size and price, so using them became much easier. But then I discovered the hazards of telephone etiquette. My telephone manners were, well, offensive to some. As I lugged my cell around yammering away, I noticed cold stares from passersby who viewed me as a kind of techno-terrorist, or at least incredibly rude.

Clearly, I was unable to follow proper phone etiquette. Rules ingrained since childhood said phone calls were private–that’s why we have telephone booths. Those rules also dictated that the phone (and I) should remain leashed by wire to the wall.

But I loved whipping out my phone on a beach to make a restaurant reservation. I adored calling friends from the Painted Desert to describe the view. Craig McCaw, the Christopher Columbus of cell phones, the man who allowed me to walk and talk and chew gum at the same time, was my idol. Was I some sort of communications freak?

My Kind of People

Maybe not, as I found out on an eye-opening visit to Sweden. As I wandered through Stockholm’s neat streets, I noticed cell phones were almost celebrated, a way of life, a religion. So much of the Swedish population was wireless that no one looked askance. (Little surprise, I found out later, given that major cell-phone manufacturers such as Ericsson and Nokia are headquartered in this neck of Europe.) I had found my people.

Then, in 1996, I discovered Motorola ‘s StarTAC. An impossibly cute device that fits snugly in your palm, it looked exactly like the phone Spock used on “Star Trek”–hence its name. Instantly covetous, I made it mine. And so did many of my friends–even those who had teased me most about my “inappropriate” cell-phone use.

Still, the idea that I could totally turn my back on the wired world seemed far-fetched. Sure, I liked bopping about with my cell, but I could always return to the safety of the land line at home. Could I take that plunge? Could I live without a land line anchoring me solidly in place? What would happen to my dial-up connection to the Internet?

The turning point came not long after I moved to California from the East Coast and thought I had made arrangements with the phone company in San Francisco to pay a late bill. Apparently I had not, and one Monday my service was cut off. Despite my protests, without a $20 reconnection fee and a $200 deposit for bad behavior, the line would remain dead. I refused to pay, instead moping angrily in a phoneless house, my world stilled.

Then, walking to work, I noticed the plethora of cell-phone stores that had sprouted up downtown like kudzu after a heavy rain. With big banners and bright stores, sassy promotions and freebies, it seemed they wanted my business, while the local phone company merely expected it.

After years of dealing with the local phone company–the only game in phone town–I remembered: Competition! I knew what to do.

I already had a cell phone for work, one that afforded me several hundred minutes of peak phone time a day. Why not get a second cell phone for home? It made sense: Buying additional time on the first would be very expensive, and anyway I wanted to keep my business and private lives separate. But would it be affordable? Would it be reliable? Did I have the guts?

Yes. Perhaps. And maybe.

A Smart Deal

Trying to goose calling habits, many cell services now offer lower rates on nights and weekends–exactly the time I’m at home. I realized I didn’t really use my traditional home phone that much during “off-peak” hours anyway. After going from one store to the next, I brokered a deal that got me 1,000 free off-peak minutes a month, along with 150 free peak minutes and a range of free services–like voice mail, call forwarding, paging–for about the same as I was paying for my land line: $50 a month before taxes.

Long-distance service cost extra, of course, but not much more than I was already paying–prices are quickly closing in on the long-distance rates of land-line service. (A recent 10-cents-a-minute cellular long-distance rate offered by AT&T , for example, set off a minor calling frenzy among cell aficionados.)

Several months into the wireless world, I am about as pleased as I could be. First, there’s the freedom. I can choose whether or not to take my phone with me, depending on my mood.

While some decry the notion of being connected anywhere, finding the technology invasive, I find it gives me better control over my life. If I have my home and work phones with me, for example, I miss no calls and do not have to check my voice mail obsessively. I can also choose not to answer the phone, especially when so many new features allow me to identify who’s calling or record calls dialed in and out.

My phones also have paging capabilities and can receive electronic mail, features that allow me to stay in touch with friends and business associates all day long. If I choose to, I can buy other extras. I could send my own e-mail, for example. And, although not yet widely available, there are devices (mini-screens, if you will) that snap onto cell phones, allowing you to surf the World Wide Web.

I also find the phones make my life more efficient, since I use them in cars, while waiting in line or whenever I’ve got a few extra minutes. That means I can work as I drive. (And now I use a headphone/microphone contraption that keeps me cellularly sober and steering straight.)

At the same time, going all-wireless forces me to use the phone more judiciously, for several reasons in addition to cost. Because many of my phone habits have given way to e-mail, I do not hang out on the phone in quite the same way as I used to.

Though with me at all times, the incoming phone calls at home don’t seem as intrusive as they once did. The loud clanging ring of my bedside phone always bothered me in a way that the soft buzz of my two cell phones does not. My home seems quieter now, partly because (without cell-phone books) telemarketers can’t find me–yet.

Cellular Snares

Cell life hasn’t been all tulips, of course. If I don’t keep the phone charged, it runs out of juice and I have to use it plugged into the wall (wired again, alas). While the staying power of cell batteries, especially digital ones, improves by the month, it’s still common for the phone to run down, especially on a chatty day.

And, sometimes, though not at home, the connection gets fuzzy and I lose calls (not always such a bad thing, of course). Because there is always a meter going, I’m now obsessively wary of using the phone too much–also not a bad thing.

If I had lots of talkative teenagers in my life, I might not be so flexible. Such families might want a cell phone only for emergencies or quick calls. Cell phones still seem aimed at, and work best for, the businessperson on the go who wants as much freedom as possible and is not terribly worried about price.

When it comes to the Internet, I have managed to find a cell phone that allows online linkage, although hanging online for hours is also not cost-effective yet.

And I have begun to test very good wireless modems that are improving in quality. Metricom ‘s slim Ricochet model, for instance, which elegantly attaches to the back of my laptop, has worked without a hitch so far and is as efficient as using a regular jack. Its new Autobahn system coming out next year will be even faster, the company promises.

I am salivating, of course, at the thought of the new satellite-based phones with which you can connect from almost any spot on the globe. Jungle calls! Deep-ocean chats! Hello, Mom, from Outer Mongolia!

(And, by the way, put me on the short list of testers for the day when wireless phones can be embedded into the human body.)

Sealed Fate

Perhaps I have gone a bit bonkers, but my last encounter with my local phone company sealed my fate forever. When I finally did find their office to stop my service, making it to the head of a long line in a drab room filled with anti-phone graffiti, the customer-service representative behind the glass was incredulous that anyone not leaving town would be kissing the phone company goodbye.

In an inexplicable fit of “policy” pique, the phone company would not put my new cell-phone number on a recording telling of my whereabouts. To get that service, said another rep I was referred to, I would have to pay the same irksome $20 reconnection charges, plus the $200 deposit, even though I had paid the bill and owed nothing. There was no telling, by the way, when I would get that deposit back.

The rep, who was sympathetic enough, shrugged. “Unfortunately,” she said, “there is nothing I can do.”

But I can, I thought, flipping open my cell phone with a defiant snap, going boldly, perhaps unsteadily, but going, anyway, where few have gone before.