Wirelessing the World Quiz

1. CWNs are community wireless networks. The are wireless networks that are designed to provide an entire community with wireless internet access, as opposed to people having to obtain a wireless service individually. They could potentially provide wireless internet access to communities and people who would not normally know how to obtain the service, or who would not be able to afford it. This would bridge the "digital divide" between economic classes. It is most common that only the middle to upper class can afford internet services, let alone wireless ones. CWNs would give internet access to resource poor areas, and everyone would be able to have access to the same resources.

2. Major wireless companies are doing their best to monopolize the business, and to make sure cheaper options do not become known or available to their customers. The obvious reason for this is that their profits would diminish if customers were to seek alternatives. One such example of a barrier set up for just this purpose is how internet providers often sell Wireless Access Points, whose purpose is to share internet connections, yet prohibit the sharing of DSL lines. They are selling a product for profit, yet do not allow their use? Meinrath says that the confusing of customers is in fact no accident, but in fact it is a tactic. Internet providers confuse their customers on purpose, to make them feel like the internet provider knows best and not questioning what they are paying for. Internet service providers encourage businesses to purchase DSL lines and share them. A cafe for example, might offer wireless internet to its customers for free. The fact is that once you buy an internet connection, what you do with it is your own business. The Future of Media text says that most internet service providers don't want you to know this. Another example of a barrier that wireless companies create to monopolize the industry is the use of bundled products. The text talks about Centrino-based notebooks. The company promotes the idea that the Intel chip that provides the wireless connection is a top of the line feature. The truth is, buying the Centrino notebook doesn't give you any choice in what kind of wireless network chip you get. What the text discusses however, is that buying a non-Centrino brand wireless card would provide higher quality internet for less money. So in fact, customers are paying for a brand, not a high quality product. This is another piece of internet the big wireless companies don't want you to know.

3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies are big problems for the end users of internet because it allows the "dinosaur" companies to control everything from product quality to pricing. They can lock customers in with low quality products for whatever price they want because they know full well that the customers have no choice if there's no competing companies. Customers lose out while stockholders get bought out by the large corporations, giving more control to fewer companies.

Money as Debt?

The mini-movie, Money as Debt by Paul Grignon is a breakdown of the way banks originated and how they function today. The movie was eye-opening for me because I had never really taken the time to understand just how banks work. During this time of economic crisis, it is extremely important to have a grasp on what's going on. Grignon explains that banks use debt to create loans. What this means is that a bank can essentially give out as many loans as it wants, even if it doesn't have the actual paper money to back it up. This creates money out of thin air. This means the people who take out loans are indebted to the bank, and as long as they pay it back, it makes no difference to either party. The person who took out the loan is none the wiser, and since they pay interest, the bank makes a profit. Basically, a bank is creating money out of nothing, which Grignon calls a "magic trick". The movie gives the example of the earliest banker, who started out with a vault to hold his gold coins. Eventually, his fellow townspeople began asking if they could also save their money there. After charging small percentages for the service, he began thinking of new ways to make even more money. He started giving out loans and charging interest. He eventually realized that he could give out more money than he could back up with the vault, knowing clients never came all at once. This allowed him to make a great profit. This is basically how our banks work today. It sounds kind of crazy, but it's actually very simple.

What Grignon suggests is to create a self-perpetuating system of control. He wants to end the cycle of debt that seems so inescapable. By making money out of debt, it creates a system where people are always paying more and more to pay off the debt. This creates an economy that can't support itself, and instead, everyday citizens are in a never-ending game of catch-up. Grignon has an idea to create money out of value, instead of debt. For example, the government should put money into the economy by putting it into things of value, like bridges, roads, and transportation. This ways the funds would trickle down the economy and it can be recycled.


2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

Creating money out of debt allows banks to make a profit with out having to use any of their own money. It seems this way, banks can make an almost infinite profit as long as not everyone w ithdraws their money at once. This is a system that favors big banks and coorporations over the everyday working person.

The FCC's 5 Questions

1. Do broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to the local communities needs and interests? Give examples to support your answer.

According to The Future of Media text, the answer would be no. Broadcasters do not effectively respond to the needs and interests of local communities. It seems instead, that broadcasters disguise themselves with the appearance that they are out to help normal citizens with their everyday media-related needs, but in fact this is not their intent at all. Instead, broadcasters try to take as much control as they can, at the cost of the real needs of the citizens, in order to have control of c0ntent and of course, to make money. An example the text gives is Verizon's fiber-optic "triple play" bundle. This provides voice, video, and internet services. This service may appeal to an everyday media consumer who believes that Verizon is trying to create the most convenient and efficient plan with their best interest in mind. However, the text suggests that in fact they are the "losers" in the situation, because it gives the company total control over their media and leaves consumers with fewer choices.

2. Are there certain kinds of local programming (Public Media Values) that should be available, but are not being provided by broadcasters? What could some examples of these be?

I'm not sure that local programming is completely lacking, as local programming has always been provided in my experience. When it comes to Public Media Values, I believe I am exposed to diversity of content and viewpoints. There is sufficient children's programming and reasonable access. However, it is certainly clear to me that commercial or national programming outweighs anything local. The radio I listen to is always local (I don't use satellite radio). The material I access on the internet is a mix between local, national, international, and commercial. The television I watch however, is almost never locally related. Aside from local news, and perhaps one local access channel, the bulk of TV media is commercial and national. However, I'm not sure that there would be much of a demand for much more local programming, at least from my perspective. Although the text says otherwise, I'm not completely convinced that there is a real need for more kinds of local programming. However, if it were the case that for example, more citizen participation in media production were desired, it would certainly be the responsibility of the broadcasting companies to provide it. This could mean more public access channels, giving opportunities for all who wish, to be involved in the production of their media.

3. What could the Federal Communication Commission do to promote localism in broadcasting? Explain three of these examples of public-service-oriented projects that are already in process across the US.

One example of public-service is the UTOPIA project that is in process in Utah. The UTOPIA project is designed to provide public, super-affordable digital phone and cable capabilities. Of course, larger corporations geared towards profit are taking actions against such threats, by pressuring city-council members not to fund such projects. There is also the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia which is a successful form of alternative media. Local broadcasters create a forum for local talent and create a community. They have even demanded that such a license be given to more stations.

Extras

What Stanford professor and lawyer that we have discussed before is mentioned in this essay? What organization is he the founder of?

What is the "spectrum" that the authors refer to?

Moyers on Media and the Electoral Process

The Future of Media's first section discusses how our electoral process has become corrupt and ineffective. Moyers talks about how voter turnout is at its lowest, the cost of elections has skyrocketed, and how the media controls the coverage we see. He believes that we need to revamp the system that controls media in order to create a better society.

In regards to the current election, I think some of what Moyers talked about can be applied, but I also think some improvements have been made in the most recent years. Though it may be true that voter turnout is low, I've noticed an increase in the use of media to make a change. For example, MTV's Choose or Lose campaign is practically unavoidable as it is so prevalent on television, radio, and in print. There's also the "Don't Vote" campaign created by actor Leonardo Dicaprio and backed by handfuls of celebrities which uses the "viral video" technique to gain viewership on the internet. In this sense, I think that the media is being used as a tool that will likely increase votership by the people that are less likely to vote normally, mainly young or poor people. While it certainly appears to me that scarily large amounts of money are being spent on predidential candidates' ads, its important that money also be spent towards the media encouraging and helping people to have a voice, and to vote.

With the improvement of technology in the media, I think that Americans are given better coverage of debates and speeches. As we watched the presidential debate and discussed in class, I believe that we are given a clear perspective of our candidates. Though as Moyers said, it is true that networks have been known to skew the perspective of viewers, I believe that with high definition picture and sound, we can really get up close and personal to our potential leaders. Another great feature we discussed is the split screen. I think it is so helpful to see both debaters on screen the whole time, giving the viewer the chance to see reactions and all types of body language. In all, I think some changes are needed in the media, and the electoral systems are infact unfair to many, but the media is responsible for a lot of positive contributions to the electoral process as well.

Strange Culture: The Steve Kurtz Case

The Steve Kurtz case is an interesting one because of its unique circumstance. This man was charged with mail fraud after the FBI desperately tried to find something illegal they could call him out on. The high profile nature of this case allowed it to become an example of how the "public amateur" is looked upon by the government. Because Kurtz was not a professional scientist, it seems that his biological studies were assumed to be illegitimate, or even harmful. The article, "Trials of the Public Amateur" by Claire Pentecost says talks about how the government prefers scientists to be professional, and working privately for them. They do not want people doing any type of research in their own homes, for fear something of interesting or detrimental nature would be discovered with out their knowledge. Though freedom of science may not be something we think about on a daily basis, this case brings an unlikely issue to the forefront. Why shouldn't scientific materials be traded, like ideas, words, or art? Thankfully, Steve Kurtz had the resources to make this a public issue. If he had not been something of a public figure ( a professor at a university), this case most likely would never have surfaced. The case serves to bring attention to the issue of the government's involvement with the work of the "public amateur" and how they interfere with the growth of independent knowledge that goes on outside of their view. The case itself, along with the film "Strange Culture" forces viewers to give thought to their feelings on issues such as the patriot act, and to what extent they really want to be "protected" by the government.

Cult of the Amateur Quiz

IBM or Big Brother

With technology today, it is hard to tell where the convenience ends, and surveillance begins. Sometimes we are so enchanted by how easy it is to access any information we desire with the click of a mouse, we forget to consider just what is at risk. The woman in Keen's book, who had her most private AOL searches published, learned this the hard way. However, it seems that positive outcomes can also come from this "Big Brother" type technology. It's difficult to know the difference between helpful and harmful.

My friend Marion told me of an incident at her workplace, IBM, which seemed to illustrate this point. A Coworker of hers had been receiving inappropriate emails from her boss. The employee, not wanting to cause trouble in the office, as she would only be there for the summer, decided to just ignore and delete the emails. She continued to stay focused on her work, but found it difficult when her boss would not communicate in a professional manner. When the boss became irritated with the unrequited feelings, he began to blame the intern for missing work. IBM was able to investigate the correspondence between the two to see who was to blame, despite the fact that the emails had been erased. Because IBM has the evolved technology to keep such a close eye, they were able to see emails that the employee had thought were gone forever. This inappropriate boss, in turn, was fired. To add to the story, Marion informed me that all IBM employees must carry badges, which they must scan at various points in the building in order to gain access. This means that IBM knows where everyone is at all times. Is this a safety feature or is it an infringement on privacy?

I think that in cases like this, it is so important to be aware of your surroundings. It is vital to understand the way technology is being used in your everyday life. In the case of IBM, it was the mistake of the boss's. It was wrong for him to use the workplace as a forum for this type of behavior, and possibly even worse that he failed to understand that his emails would not go unseen by his superiors. However, it is scary to think that this type of surveillance leaves the workplace, and follows us into our homes. I believe that changes are needed, in the way that what we search for, look at, email, or instant message from private locations should remain just that, private. I do believe there should be exceptions however. I believe that if a person commits a crime in which their internet activity may have played a role, they forfeit these rights to privacy. Generally speaking however, I think it is important to understand that in this day and age, though you feel completely anonymous online, it may not always be the case. Lesson: Think before you type.