Wirelessing the World

1. CWNs are community wireless networks. They allow for "...open, freely accessible, non proprietary systems to be built utilizing the buying power and economies of scale within neighborhoods, towns, and cities (228)". In other words, CWNs residents of the community would have the ability to save money and avoid buying into profit-driven business models of wireless communication. The community can ultimately buy bandwidth in bulk and allow all members to share the wireless network. This would eventually allow for community web resources and would even bridge the "digital divide" between Internet resource rich and poor. This would occur since the CWN would be a low cost alternative provided to the entire community. Residents would not need to worry about paying for a high priced wireless Internet provider such as linksys, netgear, etc.

2. Many of the barriers to market entry which ensure that cheaper wireless alternative companies do not compete with the large companies lie within WiMax. Most of the large wireless providers are members of WiMax, and the mission of the organization is, "to promote deployment of broadband wireless access networks by using global standard and certifying interoperability of products and technologies (222)". Interoperability, or the assumption that all competing standards must be pushed aside is a big problem. We do not even realize what else is out there. In addtion, all members of the WiMax group are industry leaders, and therefore the standards that they propose in order for a company to become an established wireless network is naturally a bit high. For instance, the group has established minimum air interface performance, and all products must meet these standards.

The author also explains how service providers try to rope consumers into multi-year agreements that appear to have a discount, but in fact do not save the consumer any money at all. The most company that pops into my mind when I think about this concept is Verizon Fios. The way in which they market their monthly price of $44.95 makes it seem as if the customer is saving so much money, when in fact we are being ripped off. Organizations such as Verizon Fios are also eliminating the competition, since they offer these bundle deals and do not allow us to pursue other potential options for our wireless service.

3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies result in fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of the wireless share because many of the major "dinosaur" companies such as Cisco, Netgear, Linksys, 3com, etc. are buying out the newer wireless companies and technologies before consumers even have a chance to discover that these smaller companies exist. The "dinosaurs" lock consumers into a system of lesser quality, but still force them to pay higher prices than their service is worth.

Money as Debt

I found the film, "Money as Debt" to be rather frustrating. In a sense, it told me many of the things I already know, but that I do not usually think about. For instance, it never occurred to me that without debt, we would have no money. I had held the belief that once more people were out of debt, we would ultimately have more money. However, this is clearly not the case.

The video explains that in order to solve this issue, we first need a different conception of money in general. I believe that many people see money as a simple piece of paper that we can always make more of. We take the amount of money that we have individually seriously, but I do not think that we take the concept of the actual printing of money seriously enough. In other words, we do not necessarily care so much where our money comes from, just as long as we have it. It does not occur to us that every loan from the bank is ultimately pushing our country deeper and deeper in debt, as long as we ourselves have the loan, we're happy.

The video explained that when money was created from gold and silver, it was much easier for people to keep tabs on the amount of money they had because they would have to physically locate more gold and silver in order to create more. Now money can be created at anytime, basically.

Grignon challenges us to ask four questions to ourselves and our governments. Number three states asks "How can a money system based on perpetual accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?"

My response is simply that it is not logical to believe that perpetually accelerating growth and sustainability are compatible. There is no way that we can keep growing as we are if we want our economy to remain sustainable...and I think that this is something we are already seeing in our society today. I, of course, do not have all of the answers on how we can possibly change our growth or our sustainability, but I do believe that we need for others to see how this is a problem and that these two factors are incompatible.

FCC

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.

I personally do not believe that broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to local communities needs and interests. This is because most of the stations are based nationally. For example, television stations such as NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. are all national stations, and are also the most popular. Radio stations are more localized simply because they have to be. One would be unable to receive a national radio signal. Even so, I know that the radio stations I spend my time listening to do not focus much on local issues and public interest.

In my opinion, much of the material that is broadcast is often biased or simply based on a topic that specific communities may or may not be interested in. As Newman and Scott explain, many citizens are now more aware of what is going on than ever before, and they know they regardless of how they feel about a particular cause, it is unlikely to go very far without some form of media that will report their view and message fairly. In order to solve this issue, the authors suggest that we, the average citizens, must demand a new system in which we are able to ask bigger questions and become more aggressive. Within this new system, the people would become the decision makers.

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 do feel that having a couple of localized television stations could prove to be beneficial. Especially in a particular county during a time of emergency, these stations could provide citizens with only the information that they need to know during their time of need. I do not feel that this type of programming is always necessary, seeing that the popular stations for entertainment purposes do tend to be the national channels. For instance, I know that I rarely watch MCTV (the Marist College television station), but if some kind of major event occurred at Marist, and our news team was reporting on the station, then I would definitely be interested. For my nightly entertainment, on the other hand, I will still turn to channels such as ABC, NBC, etc.

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.

If the FCC mandated public programming, then there would be no choice in the matter but for localized programming to exist. However, this does not mean that the stations will get any viewers. And without viewers, I have to wonder how they will create revenue and stay on the air. If the FCC were to provide a segment of their budget to these stations, perhaps they would succeed. The FCC could also require radio hosts to discuss local issues and stories of interest for a designated amount of time each day. Again, I do not know if average citizens would actually be interested in this type of information, but perhaps if it was specifically geared toward their community they would pay attention.

An example given in the article revolved around LPFM stations. These stations provide a unique medium that is a tribute to those who work at the local stations and who are more than likely members of the community. It also honors the local listeners who are also community members.

The Emerging Struggle for a Free Press

I found that one of the most prevalent issues when talking about the upcoming election in comparison to this article was actually right on the first page. The author discusses the fact that much of our country does not vote, and that the elections cater to the wealthier classes. It is interesting because in the 2008 election it is fairly obvious that both candidates are trying to appeal to the more average citizens and are pushing them to vote as well. Many of Obama's policies are in support of citizens who are of lower social status. Whether it be his healthcare reform or his plan for tax payers, he is clearly out there to help the lower classes, and therefore would also be encouraging them to vote. Even McCain with his "Joe the Plumber" deal appears to be trying to appeal to the lower social classes.

The article relates to the upcoming election in other ways as well. For instance, it describes the way that people complain about getting too much information, but also desire it as well. I think that this has come into play in the election, seeing as we are now able to get more information than ever before on the candidates. Many people have been complaining that the campaigns are too negative and each candidate is essentially trying to destroy the other, but because of the amount of information that is available, I feel that this is the future of the Presidential campaign. The candidates must bring up and attack their opponent's on the issues because if they do not, average citizens like myself can easily go online and dig up some of this information, and then wonder why such issues weren't covered.

Steve Kurtz

Although I had learned about Steve Kurtz and his story prior to this class, I have definitely gained some new insight on the situation. For starters, I had not even considered the role of the amateur in this case before today. I had actually thought about it in the opposite way, believing that because Steve Kurtz was a scientist, the situation was taken more seriously than if he were just an average citizen. In other words, because he knew what he was doing, this was more of a problem. If he were a typical citizen, perhaps this whole experiement would have been seen in a more innocent light.

However, now that I think about the fact that Kurtz was viewed as an amateur scientist, my views change. The concept of an amateur may have given the government the impression that Kurtz's work and ideas were not credible. Perhaps if Kurtz were a well-known and respected scientist in the field in which he was experimenting, the police and criminal system would have had more faith in his experiments, and instead of regarding it as a terrorist plot, it would have been considered science.

Kurtz mentioned that he and Ferrell were both easy targets for the judicial system, and I think he is absolutely right. Between Kurtz having suddenly lost his wife and Ferrell going in for Cancer treatment, it almost seems as if the government were taking an "easy out" and tried to make themselves believe that they were doing our country a favor by making these two men out to be criminals. The American people are easily manipulated, and so if we were told that these people were potential terrorists, I don't see why we wouldn't believe it. Sure, some people may be skeptical, but it just goes to show how much faith we put in our judicial system and government.

I will say that I am relieved that the courts ruled in favor of Kurtz. It is a shame that he had to put up with this nonsense for four years of his life, but I think that his story is quite beneficial. It uncovers some of the aspects of our courts that would likely be swept under the rug otherwise. I understand why we have the Patriot Act, and while I do believe it is necessary in order to keep the United States safe, it can also be taken much too far.

Cult of the Amateur Quiz

1984 / Web 2.0

Amber and I were discussing online shopping, specifically using Google Checkout. Her mom had stored all of her information in this specific checkout system, only to later find out that if she did not log out, all of her credit card information would be open for anyone who comes on the computer to see. In addition, other online shopping sites like amazon.com have access to this information.

I understand that online shopping is very popular right now, but hearing about stories like this scares me. It's much too easy for someone to get credit card information, but what really makes me nervous is how other websites are able to simply get a hold of all of this. Sure, amazon is a secure site, but I'm sure there are plenty of hackers out there who are smart enough to figure out how to get all of this information onto their websites as well. It makes me nervous to think that once you put something on the internet, there's no taking it back. Because someone, somewhere, will more than likely have it stored.

This idea leads me to think about the section in "Cult of the Amateur" that talks about the woman who's search engine entries were tracked and followed for multiple months. After you close out of Google, you would assume that the information you had entered is gone. After all, with millions of search inquiries being entered in, how could they possibly keep track? Well, they've somehow managed it.

All of this makes me wonder not only who can we trust...but what can we trust?