Negating Net Neutrality

Communication has never been so technical. Personal communication was revolutionized with the invention of cell phones and computers, eliminating distance barriers. People in America are now highly dependent on the Internet to learn about the news, do research, and chat with friends. However, their freedom of communication is at stake: Internet service providers (ISPs) may soon have the authority to control what sites users are and are not able to see – unless the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changes the Internet’s definition from an “information service” to a “telecommunications service.” This simple technicality makes the difference between a free Internet and a monopolized web grossly concerned with profit.

.

Currently, users are free to navigate to whatever site they wish (unless, of course, they themselves choose to install a filter). Users do not have to pay more to navigate to certain sites, nor are specific web pages programmed to upload slower than others so as to discourage users from viewing the webpage. This is referred to as “net neutrality.” A threat to net neutrality arose when in 2007 Comcast was found to be intentionally blocking websites from users. The FCC fought against the blockages, but Comcast fought back and won – a Federal court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to check Comcast’s regulation liberties because the Internet is not defined as a “telecommunications service.”

.

The problem with ISPs becoming the gatekeepers on what sites users go to is that it inhibits the laissez faire interaction on the Internet that people enjoy. People already pay high prices for Internet use. The order of results on search engines such as Yahoo! or Google is determined by the money paid by the website sponsor to have their site show up first. Producers are in part controlled by their advertisers because that is a way they make money off their websites. The elimination of net neutrality is yet another form of censorship because money and ISPs determine what sites users can and cannot see.

.

Will net neutrality become a thing of the past? Only time will tell.

Prime Minister Uses Prime Technology

The other day I was scanning through some news articles about technology on Google News (great source, by the way). Amongst the 'typical' headline stories about the new iPad, one really caught my attention: "Stranded Leader Runs Country by iPad." What?? Needless to say, I kept on reading.

The article was posted on April 17 by CNN, and it described an unusual set of events for the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg. During one of his visits to the USA, a volcano erupted in Iceland that kept all the airports from running. Stoltenberg ended up stranded in New York. Sounds like a bad scenario, doesn't it? Wouldn't the fact that the Prime Minister of Norway is stuck in a foreign country not turn out too well for the people of Norway? By no means. Stoltenberg simply whipped out his high-tech iPad and ran the country from the convenience of NY. Wow. Now that's cool.

Technology never ceases to amaze me. I'm blown away by all the advancements that've been made over the past several decades and especially in the last decade alone. Technology has certainly changed the way we do things - not that I remember a time before the Internet and cell phones... but I'm told life was different then.

One thing we've been talking about in media class recently is about how technology has changed the way we conceive of communication. Instead of being constrained by location and having to communicate face-to-face (in the days without technology), we're able to communicate without concern for distance and location. No longer does it matter how far away I am from someone; whether I'm 2 miles away or 2,000 miles away, technology allows me to feel closely connected to anyone. And being able to transcend distance through technology and still communicate was essential when it came to Stoltenberg being stranded in NY and still running Norway.

So, speaking of distance not being an issue... Maybe I could end up 'stranded' on, say, a tropical island and sit in the shade of a tree by the shore and do my homework from there. (Ahhh... that's the life.)

New Phones for a New Generation

In May, Microsoft will release two new phones, the Kin One and Kin Two. However, these phones are directed explicitly to the social-networking generation. The younger demographic is expected to leap for this phone in competition with the iPhone.

The New York Times published an article about the exciting steps Microsoft has taken appeal to the 15-30 year olds-- the demographic for which they are aiming. The phones are closely synched with different social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. They are touch screens, link with Zune music, and have high-powered cameras and video capabilities. Microsoft has been in need of a technological boost since their numbers went down in 2009. They are hoping this new younger-generation savvy phone will pick up their sales.

The most important aspect of this campaign will be advertisements. The advertising consultants at Microsoft will have their hands full trying to appeal to the younger generation. The iPhone has done a great job roping in teens and young adults with its applications and easy access to the internet. The Kin One and Two are said to be the best competition for the iPhone. My mass media class talked about the way advertisers select a certain demographic and switch all their focus to said demographic—especially using propaganda. The audience is meant to see the certain product and be inclined to buy it. Advertisers know their audience and what they want.

It will be interesting to see how the new Kins will compare to the iPhone. I know the iPhone is extremely popular with all my friends, so seeing the Microsoft equivalent will be exciting. Responding to the wants of teens and tweens across America is a brilliant strategy. We’ll have to see if they have the smarts to swing over the Apple generation to get their Kin.

-Betsy

Your T.V Is KIlling You!!!!!! Maybe? Well actually, probably not..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35646508/ns/health-behavior/

MSNBC.com contributer, Linda Carroll, contends that TV is extremely harmful. According to this article, TV makes you deader, drunker, your kids pregnant, weakens your bones, and makes you less engaging. The basic message is clear: throw out your television because it is ruining your life. Hmmmm. While this article may look foolish to many people, including a college student like myself, I have a feeling there are people out here who hold Carrolls same viewpoint. If so, there are thousands of parents reinforcing their beliefs and in turn, removing the tv's from their kids bedrooms. My hope is to address this argument objectively, but I must admit I find it a bit extreme and invalid.
This article rattles off a list of arguments, supported with "studies," that argue that your television is extremely harmful. In fact, it will kill you! For a parent, contributer, scholar, hobo, whoever, they must operate under the assumption that the media are extremely powerful and persuasive. They would align themselves with media effects scholars. These scholars argue that the media holds the power in the relationship between the media and the people. TV audiences are passive and blindly accept the messages that the media disseminates.
The opposing viewpoint is what media scholars call active audience. These active audience scholars contend that media "cannot tell people what to think or how to behave in any direct way because people are not nearly as stupid, gullible, or east to dominate as the media indoctrination perspective would have us believe (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003)." This contention is weary of the power of the media and credits audience as being intelligent and autonomous. This is also an extreme view that rejects any effect that media messages might have.
So where does this leave us? Is our Tv sets really killing us? Am I getting dumber? Is your daughter really pregnant? Is all this caused my tv. Well some people may have this belief but i would argue that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of media effects and active audience theorist. I don't think that we are passive robots waiting for orders for good of ill. I also do not believe that we are totally immune to the effects that the media could potential have. What who am I? Decide for yourself.

What You See is What You Do

Recently I was looking at articles on Indianexpress.com and I came across the article titled, “Mean World Syndrome.” In this article, a woman is looking for the pattern in people who commit violent crimes. Specifically, school shootings. They may look deep with in the person hoping to find the answers, but only finding more questions. People want to blame it on the media, the new theory is it’s the “mean world syndrome.” Kids see the violent crimes committed in video games, movies, news, everywhere in the media. They then live out the fantasy for themselves. What they see, becomes what they do.

Recently in class we have been discussing the Bobo doll experiment, conducted by Arthur Bandura in 1962. The test was to design the relationship between TV violence and child behavior. There were three groups. The first was in a playroom, with individual kids (3-5 yrs old) where they watched an adult abuse the Bobo doll. The second group of kids was divided by gender and watched a film of the same aggression of the Bobo doll. The third group of kids watched the same aggression, performed by a cartoon-like cat costume and placed in a artificial-looking setting. The control group does not watch anyone kicking crud out of Bobo. As a result of seeing the abuse done to the Bobo doll by adults, the kids pretty much did the same. Showing that what kids see, does have a direct affect on what they do.

So what does this matter? With all the cruelty going on in the world, he is not surprising that some people want answers. Although the Bobo Doll experiment we discussed in class can prove that what children see has a direct affect on what they do, there is always the exception. But, there is one thing that is certain, I am sure many people, especially the young should think about what they watch on TV, because sometimes it is challenging to keep fantasy and reality as two separate categories in our lives.

Sex in the Media

Themes of sexuality are becoming more and more common throughout the media today. In the article “Mass media influences on sexuality – Statistical data included”, by Jane Brown, the ideas and themes of sexuality and the media are becoming very prevalent in our teen society today. It is recorded that the average young person spends 6 to 7 hours every day using some form of the media. It has been proven that nearly half of all television shows portray some sort sexuality; ranging from “flirting to sexual intercourse”.

About one fifth to half of all music played contains some sort of sexual content or sexual reference. Brown goes onto talk about how the media leaves out the risks of unprotected sex (the 3 C’s) and the dangers incorporated with it. Along with the dangers, Brown talks about the programs on television that include sexual content and that only 1 out of every 10 shows contain information that mention consequences, and the need and importance of contraceptives.

This article is helpful to teenagers and young adults because it discusses the reasons to take precaution and that what we see on television is not always the same as the situations in real life. Brown makes a good point in that sex can be a very sensitive topic and how it is shown to some extent on television however it is the audience’s responsibility to take proper care for their bodies and not leave it up to what is seen on television. “But an emerging set of studies that go beyond content to address how audiences select, interpret, and apply sexual content suggests that the media may play an important role, especially for young people (Steele 1999).” As a result young adults today should make responsible decisions and treat their body as a temple. Media can be a huge persuasive factor in one’s life, however, it is necessary to be safe and to protect one’s body.

Samantha<3

Rethink Possible

Advertising. Every day we see millions of advertisements flashing around us. Okay, well, maybe not millions, but it sure seems like we are constantly bombarded with brand names telling us that we need them. However, one company is starting to take a different approach.
In an article in the New York Times, AT&T announced their new advertising campaign. AT&T is one of America’s top five advertising companies and is trying to change the way Americans see their products. The new slogan: “Rethink Possible.”
The point of this optimistic campaign is to bring the country out of the recession slumps and introduce them to a company that is forward-thinking and ready for positive change. They are building off of commercials they ran during the Olympics that saluted athletic achievement, and anyone who strives to be the best: “Here’s to Possibilities.”
Even more interestingly, AT&T is not promoting a single product—or any of their products really. They are burnishing the brand image of AT&T, convincing customers to be for their company because the company is good, alongside their products.
That is the most exciting and interesting part to me: an advertisement that is NOT SELLING A PRODUCT but a company’s reputation. Ever since my mass media class discussed advertisements, I’ve been thinking about the non-sense we are meant to believe. On network television, TELEVISION PROGRAMS ARE NOT THE IMPORTANT PRODUCT ON TV, ADVERTISEMENTS ARE. Television networks want consumers to see the advertisements more than their prime-time show. We discussed how the shows are meant to prepare us for the commercials, so we will be in a “buying mood”. With this new campaign from AT&T, television stations won’t know how to prepare their audiences.
I think this new campaign will reflect positively on AT&T. The country is looking for people (even companies) in which to find hope. I think AT&T is headed in the right direction. Their ads will not seem like regular advertisements and consumers will like that. I am excited to see what they are. I applaud AT&T for seeing a need in the consumers—an emotional and psychological need, not consuming need—and applying it to their company. Hopefully the consumers will agree.


Here’s to Possibilities, AT&T.

Betsy