The opening line of the classic J.M. Barrie book “Peter Pan” reads, “All children, except one, grow up.”

Actually, that one grew up, too, and now the whole Internet is angry at Google (GOOG) and taking shots, because of the Silicon Valley search giant’s recent joint public-policy proposal with Verizon (VZ) over net neutrality.

Many are claiming Google–in the most cynical of ways–sold out its long-standing commitment to the open Internet to make a corporately favorable deal.

Thus, Google–in this case, Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel–took to the corporate blog yesterday to explain it all away in a post titled “Facts About Our Network Neutrality Policy.”

It practically begs for translation, so BoomTown shall not disappoint:

Google wrote: Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion surrounding our announcement of a policy proposal on network neutrality we put together with Verizon. On balance, we believe this proposal represents real progress on what has become a very contentious issue, and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal, but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.

Translation: Wait, the hypnotic multicolored letters aren’t working anymore? What about the cute logos on the homepage–didja see our whimsical “Wizard of Oz” montage? Hey, our founders still wear wacky shoes!

And look over here at the Googleplex: Segways with wings and coconut-water lattes for all!

Okay, we’ll come clean: This band of Lost Boys–and Wendy who runs search–didn’t want to grow up, either.

But Sheryl Sandberg did an Indian talent raid and convinced Tinkerbell to take all her fairy dust to work on magical social-marketing features at Facebook. Also, Captain Hook and that alligator are working up some geo-location thing with the ticking clock over at Foursquare.

In other words, that’s Mr. Peter Man to you now.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.

Translation: We caved. In fact, we spelunked. All right, we journeyed to the center of the earth. Second to the right and straight on till morning, times a google.

But it is not technically selling out, since we got no money in the deal. I mean, not yet.

That comes later, when we and Verizon control all the tolls on the private and exclusive Schminternet, named for Fearless Leader and CEO Eric Schmidt (pictured here), coming to you in 2020!

We’re not saying the solution is perfect. But we believe that a proposal that locks in key moneymaking fees for us is preferable to having to struggle later–like those losers at Microsoft (MSFT) do today–when the search business goes the way of boxed software.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

* Newly enforceable FCC standards
* Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
* Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
* Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
* Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
* Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors
* Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward–another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

Translation: Did you ever do the Hokey Pokey? Jockeying for political power in Washington is like that, except someone always loses an eye.

You put your eternal soul in,
You put your ethics out;
You put your corporate standards in,
And you shake them all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!

Which is why they say you should never watch sausage being made.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.

Translation: By transparency, we mean a backroom deal so covered in the fog of compromise that it was like the Smoke Monster in “Lost.”

And you know what happened when he (she? it?) showed up. Not pretty.

Neither was the fact that we had to throw wireless–the most promising of networks–under the bus right now. While there is likely to be some crushing of competition and mangling of the bones of this little baby, you can be sure Congress can always step in to protect consumers’ interests with regard to wireless broadband.

In fact, Congress just hired Kate and Jon Gosselin to give parenting tips on how not to completely take advantage of the wired Internet’s most valuable offspring.

Google wrote: MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

Translation: Yes, the very same government that protected its citizens from the sub-prime mortgage mess by monitoring those giant, risk-mad banks so well.

The same government that was making sure oil giants like BP adhered to strict safety standard for its offshore wells.

The same government…well, you get the general idea, but you should have no fear of cannibals.

Of sharkish telcom companies, yes. Of man-eating lions from the cable business, certainly.

But of multicolored, letter-decorated piranhas who look harmless with their big squishy balls and organic guava smoothies but will cut you as soon as you stick one consumer finger in the digital pond?

Let’s just say: Don’t go in the water.

Google wrote: MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.

FACT: This is a policy proposal–not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.

Translation: Rachel, are you in London or back in Mountain View? Please ring us up asap, as you need to come up with some fancy new talk. I don’t think they are buying this policy-proposal-not-a-business-deal pablum.

In fact, I am even giggling every time I write it.

Google wrote: MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

Translation: Indeed, two corporations are not legislating the future of the Internet.

In point of fact, there were at least a half-dozen of us on the G5 on the way back from divvying up the Web in D.C.

And we’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could–or should–decide the future of this issue.

We are planning on including at least six or seven more businesses, since it will cost an awful lot of money to peddle all that influence in D.C.

Of course, that Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook seems to be holding out and even criticizing our Verizon bear hug.

That kid has some guts all right–but he can’t live in Neverland forever.

At some point, you’ve got to grow up. You can’t clap your hands and believe you can fly. Even pixie dust eventually runs out.

And that’s something we at Google know very, very well by now.

And until the magic returns, please relish the incomparable Mary Martin in the famous stage version of “Peter Pan” singing “Never Never Land.” As Peter Pan described himself, “I’m youth, I’m joy. I’m a little bird that has broken out of the egg.” Martin is all that and more:

"Never Never Land"
Uploaded by computergirl07. – Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

That’s the question a lot of people in the media industry have asked since the Disney (DIS) unit launched its app in April. The usual response, after a shrug–perhaps Disney CEO Bob Iger wanted to do something nice for Apple’s (AAPL) Steve Jobs, who happens to be the biggest single owner of Disney shares.

And that may well be the case. But I’ve since heard a slightly more detailed justification for the free app. Bear with me:

The shows offered by the ABC app are the same ones ABC offers up for free on its Web site. Which means, because of the terms of ABC’s deal with Hulu, that those same shows are available for free on Hulu.

But the Hulu subscription service will feature ABC shows that aren’t available anywhere online for free. So you’ll see different shows on ABC’s free app than on Hulu’s paid offering. Which means they aren’t really competitive at all.

Got it?

Admittedly, that logic will track, if you’re paying attention. And if you follow the TV and movie industry’s use of “windows” and the disruptive threat digital media pose to Hollywood, it won’t sound completely foreign.

And perhaps the first several million iPad buyers will be savvier than most TV watchers. But for most people, it’s going to remain a head-scratcher: Why do I get to watch some episodes of “Lost” for free on this app, but it costs $10 a month to watch other episodes of the same show on that app?

And if anyone asks you that question, feel free to mention this post. It’s free, after all.

Oh dear, here it comes round again, like a bout of the flu–the indefatigable narrative about how Microsoft is headed downhill at an alarming speed, how CEO Steve Ballmer is about to get the boot and how it is all really, really true since the echo chamber of tech keeps repeating it.

Over the past two weeks, for example, I have gotten numerous “tips” that all these things are about to happen. Except when I go to check them out by doing some actual reporting, they turn out to be more chatter than reality, more barstool musing than concrete, and without much in the way of those pesky facts.

Today, we get yet another from the Olympic champion of traffic-goosing headlines on blogs, Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider, in what is quite a humdinger of a title: “The Odds Are Increasing That Microsoft’s Business Will Collapse.”

Holy Guacamole! Really?

You mean the Microsoft that still–despite all the Google Apps machinations–has a hammerlock on the enterprise software market? The company with a badillion dollars in cash in the bank? The one that can lose more than $700 million in its Online Services division and not blink an eye?

Actually, the headline is the most exciting part of the whole article that follows, which hedges mightily as it also dredges up old news about Microsoft’s business challenges.

The short version: The Internet is everything that’s not good for Microsoft; Apple (AAPL) is rocking the mobile market; Google (GOOG) is disrupting all over the place; and, natch, the oncoming cloud-computing incursion is worse than the Smoke Monster from “Lost” for Microsoft’s cash-generating Windows and Office businesses.

All true in a very broad-brush way. But, of course, Blodget pulls a complete on-one-hand-on-the-other at the end, although he cannot resist a final over-the-top statement:

Right now, the investors are concluding that Microsoft will gradually become the equivalent of a technology utility–a boring but necessary provider of the software that runs the world’s business community. A smaller, more optimistic crowd is still arguing that, one day, Microsoft will be able to turn its fortunes around, and fight its way back into an industry leadership position.

What almost no one is talking about is a third possibility, one that becomes more likely by the day: The possibility that, a couple of years down the road, Microsoft’s business may just completely collapse.

Here’s the simple and less flashy situation:

Microsoft, as all tech companies do, needs to change, and a lot faster than it has so far; the company has been trying mightily to do so in search and recently, in mobile, where it is woefully far behind; its leadership under Ballmer, who took over from co-founder Bill Gates, has been meh enough to keep its stock moribund.

But, by no means recently–even if there is a better CEO for Microsoft out there than Ballmer–have I found the company execs ignorant about the tougher issues or unwilling to consider changes needed.

In fact, in its high-flying days, Microsoft did have a tin ear to criticism. No longer, and I would call its execs appropriately concerned about fixing its issues, although their efforts do suffer from the company’s massive size and inertia in making the right moves.

Thus, they certainly might not be successful at innovating, although these are the very kinds of problems Apple CEO Steve Jobs solved when he returned to a rotten company in what, in its current glory days, seems eons ago.

And Microsoft has been getting the same questions that are beginning to be asked about Google.

But can you imagine anyone not mocking a likely headline-to-come about the search giant: “Search: If That’s All There Is, My Friend, Then Let’s Keep Surfing (to Oblivion!)”?

That’s why–at this point–I can see no need for panic to set in about Microsoft. Next year, perhaps. Five years, with no change and not listening to the obvious, definitely.

As for today, even though we are all terminal, the sky looks like it will remain intact at Microsoft for a little bit longer.

While the final episode of ABC’s “Lost” got all the attention last night, many were dissatisfied with the ending, which seemed to suggest the castaways were all dead the whole time.

Which does make sense for the convoluted television series, since it started with a plane crash.

But here are videos of BoomTown’s favorite TV finales, including my personal fave from HBO’s “Six Feet Under.”

(The image above is the last one from “M.A.S.H.,” by the way, which was one of the most watched, but way too weepy for me.)

Seinfeld (it was about nothing!):

Friends (perfectly simple):

The Sopranos (Tony was whacked!):

The Mary Tyler Moore Show (the classic classy ender):

Six Feet Under (they all die–eventually):

Here are some other options, via Jimmy Kimmel’s post-finale special. A little disappointing that there’s no Bobby Ewing dream season reference here, but whatever. And if the YouTube link here goes dead, let me know and I’ll try to find you another one.

Here is the latest comic from our Joy of Tech friends at Geek Culture, Nitrozac and Snaggy. Joy of Tech appears three times a week in the Voices section of this site. (Click on the image to see a bigger version.)

For fans of the soon-to-end mysterioso television show, “Lost,” two of the top writers on “The Late Show With David Letterman” on CBS (CBS) did a really funny spoof of what happens to the smoke monster after the series is all over on May 23.

As an added plus, “Lost” executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse were on Letterman last night to render the “Top Ten Spoilers for the ‘Lost’ Finale.”

My fave: “Due to pressure from the Internet, we’ve been forced to include Betty White.”

Enjoy the videos:

A public service announcement for those of you eager to start paying for Hulu: Be patient. You’re going to have to keep waiting.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times said Hulu was set to roll out a subscription service “as soon as May 24.” That’s next Monday. But people familiar with the company say there’s no way a Hulu Plus will be up and running by then.

When will the long-discussed premium service be ready? I don’t know. I’m still not entirely convinced that the joint venture–owned by News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, Disney’s (DIS) ABC and GE’s (GE) NBC–has completely settled on terms of the plan, though I think they’ve agreed on the broad strokes: $10 a month for access to a deeper catalog of broadcast shows and to the service on devices like Apple’s (AAPL) iPad. (Regular Hulu, which is on a pace to generate $200 million in advertising this year, remains free).

And even if Hulu and all of its partners are seeing eye-to-eye–not a given–getting the rights from various programming partners to sell their shows could be a slog.

The upside: Your patience will be rewarded, Hulu subscribers of the future. One person familiar with the company’s plans tells me the new service will be “revolutionary.” Popular claim these days. Let’s see if it holds up.

Speaking of patience–a great Jimmy Kimmel bit about last week’s infuriating epsiode of “Lost”:

That’s not really out of character for Jobs, I suppose, but it does speak to just how deeply involved he is in keeping Apple’s (AAPL) new products secret until he decides it’s time to show them to the public.

“I recently read in the news that you lost a very special phone at a German beer bar in California. We all know how frustrating it can be to lose personal belongings, especially when it is such a unique item.

At Lufthansa we also noted with great interest your passion for German beer and culture….Therefore we would love to offer you complimentary Business Class transportation to Munich, where you can literally pick up where you last left off.”

– Lufthansa spins a bit of clever PR from this week’s iPhone prototype debacle.

The network is the only one of the four broadcasters offering much programming on Apple’s device at launch Saturday. As previously reported, the Disney (DIS) unit is offering about 20 of its shows, including “Lost” and “Grey’s Anatomy,” for free via a new app.

But that’s about it. Come Saturday, CBS (CBS) will only be streaming full episodes of “Survivor” at its iPad-friendly site. And News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC aren’t streaming any full-length shows at all. If you want to watch “CSI,” “The Simpsons” or “30 Rock” on your Web browser this weekend, you’ll need to use something other than an iPad.

CBS says it will offer more shows over time, but NBC and Fox aren’t even promising that. When the Hulu app arrives, those two networks’ shows will be available there, but under current plans, they’ll be available only to paying subscribers.

The holdouts’ logic is that the iPad is a mobile device. And while the networks are basically okay with streaming their stuff for free on the Web, they think that mobile is a different ballgame, and one they can charge for (though even that’s confusing — NBC does stream full-length shows for free to the iPhone, but won’t do the same for the iPad).

But if that’s the reasoning, why is ABC, which joined up with Hulu a year ago, putting up its stuff for free on the iPad? The fact that Apple (AAPL) boss Steve Jobs is Disney’s largest single shareholder can’t be the only reason.

ABC may be able to thread the needle here because it is only making its shows available via Wi-Fi streaming, not over AT&T’s (T) network. But that kind of “windowing” is going to seem awfully arbitrary to most casual users, and those are the ones both Apple and the networks are supposed to be targeting here. So something’s going to have to give. Stay tuned.

Nielsen says 13.3 percent of Americans who watched the Oscars also used the Web during this month’s telecast and that 14.5 percent of those watching last month’s Super Bowl did the same thing (see table below; click to enlarge).

These numbers are both up from last year, and the only surprise here is that they’re so low. But remember: Not everyone spends as much time on the Web as you do–a third of the country still doesn’t have broadband.

Nielsen says that online/offline viewers spent the majority of their Web time at Facebook, Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO), which isn’t surprising. It’s a little bit interesting that Twitter.com doesn’t crack Nielsen’s list of Top 10 domains for simultaneous viewing. But perhaps most people who Twitter during TV time are doing so from their phones.

Speaking of which, many thanks to all of you who have refrained from Twittering during and immediately after “Lost” this season–my stream has been nice and quiet so far. Or perhaps no one’s watching “Lost” anymore. I wouldn’t blame them; this season has been frustrating even by the show’s frustrating standards.

Hi there! Salivating for tonight’s show? Me too.

But I have a request. Please hear me out.

Like you, I’ve invested an embarrassingly substantial number of hours in this thing. And I can’t wait for one last season with Jack, Locke, et al. (Especially Locke. Can’t get enough Locke.)

But unlike some of you, I’m probably not going to be able to watch every show in real-time. Various life requirements are going to force me to watch at least some of these a day or two later on the DVR (or ABC.com or Hulu in a pinch).

Which would be fine, except that I’m also on Twitter a lot, and so are many of you. And many of you want to tweet about the show while it’s running and during its aftermath.

I don’t know why that is. I get the idea of Twittering along with live communal events like “American Idol” or pro football. But you guys realize that “Lost” episodes were taped months ago, right?

Anyway, I’m not here to judge! Just to ask for your help.

My ask: It’d be really great if you folks could lay off the “Lost” tweets until a few days after each show. Because otherwise, I–and, I suspect many other people, as well–will have to make an unpleasant choice: Stop using Twitter for several days a week or wade through lots and lots of spoilers. (This is apparently not a Hobbesian Choice but a Morton’s Fork. Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Yes, I think it’s theoretically possible for me to set up Twitter clients like Tweetdeck to strike some “Lost”-related tweets from my stream. But not all of them.

I also suppose we could also ask Biz Stone and crew to somehow filter out “Lost” tweets from the mainstream, but I think those guys have more important stuff to do. (One other alternative would be to ask all you Twittering real-time “Lost” watchers to head somewhere else for a bit, like Hot Potato, which is supposed to work for just this sort of thing. But I can understand if you’re not up for embracing yet another messaging service.)

So. What do you think ? I’m not asking for much, I think. Just a little near-term restraint. Let’s say two days, max.

That lets the rest of us catch up–remember, East Coasters, that the poor folks on the other side of the country are three hours behind to begin with. And then we can join the rest of you, and we can all discuss this awesome show in 140 or fewer characters.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Peter

P.S.: I bet the smoke monster is Jack’s dad. Or something.

And from YouTube’s perspective, that’s all that matters. Because the Google (GOOG) unit certainly didn’t make any money from the exercise: 2,684 people paid $3.99 a pop to rent indie movies from Sundance, netting all of $10,709.16, the New York Times notes.

But since YouTube hadn’t ever rented a single piece of video to anyone who wasn’t a Google employee before, the company can plausibly claim this was a success. It has been testing movie rentals internally for some time, and Google execs have suggested both publicly and privately that they’ll be renting films–and perhaps TV shows–in the near future.

But among other things, they need to show Hollywood that they can actually do this, so the Sundance experiment could be useful no matter how many dollars it generates.

I’d assumed that the standard pricing/windowing/biz-dev issues were holding up YouTube’s entry into paid video, but some industry executives have told me that there are technical issues to deal with as well, like making sure video files are handled securely. So Sundance has to help, right?

Meanwhile, here’s the trailer from “Be Kind Rewind,” a movie about movies I haven’t seen but would like to. Maybe once this season of “Lost” ends.

For those who don’t care one bit about the rollout of the Apple (AAPL) tablet later this morning by CEO and ringmaster Steve Jobs, here is an incredibly funny song spoof poking fun at the mysterious ABC television hit, “Lost.”

The show is premiering the first episode of its final season next week, and the Fine Brothers want some answers about the convoluted plot of the often vexing program.

Using “Downtown” as its tune, the spoof is long, but spot-on–the part about Jin is especially hysterical. And that’s coming from someone who gave up on “Lost” after the weird second season.

Here’s the video: