So I have grown up with PCs- about 4 in all. Huge behemoths of noise, towers that make third-world countries jealous, and of course Microsoft’s poor excuse for a competent OS. My most recent computer is a Dell Dimension Desktop (of Doom), which I had purchased for my college experiences … That was six years ago and somehow I haven’t ripped my brains out since then. With my working knowledge, IT Professional brother, and world of nerdy friends I have been back and forth over what to purchase from this point onward.

The Goods

I am willing to spend upwards of $1500 for a new computer, be it PC or Mac, but I am unsure about what I personally still want. Here are the current specs:

• Dell Dimension Desktop
• Windows XP
• Pentium 4 (2.4 ghz)
• 512 mb of RAM
• 75 gb Hard Drive
• CD-R Drive

All in all not a horribly built computer. I could simply keep it running with Discontinued (?) XP by adding more RAM and installing a new 250 gb hard drive. What would that run me back: a few $100? This is oddly enough still an option for me considering I have no pressing reason to splurge on a MacBook Pro 13.3″ (it’s sexy I know). The problem with the Mac dilemma for me is the claims of service and death of the machine- so AppleCare would be a must purchase with the laptops.  But why do I have to spend over $1000 to get something decent that will last me a while from Apple? Here’s the list of things I will be doing with my computer:

• Blogging
• Word Processing
• Small-time Audio Processing (Not ProTools)
• Old School Videogaming (Like really old, wherein I need to DOS it up)
• Traveling the Interwebs
• Hopefully not using iTunes

My Old School Guy

That’s really it. No video editing, no hardcore gaming, no huge responsibilities. Just reliability is what I need. Please people I need some advice!

A now an essay about digital citizenship:

The interconnectivity of the digital age has transformed our social, political, and economic landscapes. We now live in an age where information is one of the hottest commodities and at almost every moment of our daily lives we are somehow connected to the internet- jacked in. We have access to great amounts of information and we can become knowledgeable about our options, thereby making more informed decisions.

Nearly every American citizen has a public and private presence on the internet either through their work or personal usage. One of the most important decisions we make in our democratic society is who we elect to represent us in our government, both on the local and federal level. The democratic republic that we live in is not a true democracy but for our population size it is a more practical choice. This process of representation is paramount to citizenship; the ability to elect others to represent us in our government is what we have come to expect by being citizens. This whole process has come unto much scrutiny in our current time as the percentage of voters is not the ideal one hundred percent as we would wish. It is understandable that this may be true because our populous country has an enormous degree of issues in debate that determine voters one way or the other, yet only a select minority reach the public through mainstream media. However many have to come to claim that through the new information age we, society, have a better ability to put all these issues up for debate. This expansion of the public sphere through the internet is a huge significance for the democratic process. It is believed that through the process of critical discussion different and better outcomes can be achieved. Through new and more open, diverse media they promote a wider variety of issues to our media-hungry nation:

“The emergence of new media technologies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media. Sometimes the media are designed to respond to mass media content- positively or negatively- and sometimes grassroots creativity goes place no one in the media industry could have imagined.” Jenkins, p. 258

The ease at which one person can comment on a news story, post a video of their perspective of events, and rally others behind a specific cause is dramatically different from the options of the television age. In the internet age there is a new model of communications and media that continually breaks the fourth wall allowing, or sometimes even demanding, the viewer to give feedback instantaneously. This divergence from top-down transmission is not only a technical breakthrough but a cultural one, playing into the ties between culture and the media.

“The challenge is to rethink our understanding of the First Amendment to recognize this expanded opportunity to participate. We should thus regard those things that block participation- whether commercial or governmental- as important obstacles to route around if we are going to ‘democratize television’ or any other aspect of our culture.”

Jenkins, p. 258

Here Jenkins recognizes the social and political responsibility of new media technology. Both “culture” and “media” are inextricably interconnected to one another because they each are made and comment on one another through different technologies. This relationship is even more present where the internet can have such an immediate impact on the daily life of every citizen. And yet the value of this relationship is how it hasn’t necessarily changed but become much more vast and complex with new media technologies.

This leads me to the new idea of the informed citizen in the digital age; it proposes a different model over than the traditional voter or member of a community. Our current educational system teaches us the ability to read and write – the standards of a democratic system; however with the introduction of such an expansive and accessible public sphere, participation enters into this new definition. The participation of a citizen in debate of their opinions and views about current issues marks a significant change in our understanding of what it means to be an informed citizen because of the increased level of communication between individuals. This emphasis on participation is explained a bit further by Jenkins.

“Historically, public education in the United States was a product of the need to distribute the skills and knowledge necessary to train informed citizens. The participation gap becomes much more important as we think about what it would mean to foster the skills and knowledge needed by monitorial citizens: here, the challenge is not simple being able to read and write, but being able to participate in the deliberations over what issues matter, what knowledge counts, and what ways of knowing command authority and respect.” pp. 258-9

In a traditional model this would be too overwhelming without a physical space large enough to hold together the spectre of debate. Simultaneously there are too many people and issues to emphasize all at once. However the digital public space is ethereal and practically endless; it is virtually ideal. The public education system can and has welcomed the digital public space to a limited amount; many youths today are taught to use computers in classrooms and navigate the world wide web for research and current events. I remember being in high school during this transition to digital education models using new media. However I, alongside most of my generation, was far superior at utilizing the internet over the instructor. The informed citizen is a parallel term for the virtual citizen because of the extent to which they operate- a virtual citizen is someone who knows how to navigate and find what they are looking for through the internet.

“The ideal of the informed citizen is breaking down because there is simply too much for any individual to know. The ideal of monitorial citizenship depends on developing new skills in collaboration and a new ethic of knowledge sharing that will allow us to deliberate together.” Jenkins, pp. 258-9

The idea of information sharing or knowledge communities is realized in new Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia.org. This virtual encyclopedia touts a huge database that rivals traditional subscription based websites through much more current posts. The beauty of Wikipedia is also its pitfall- as any member can submit, edit, or retract information, though to certain limits. Wikipedia is a great tool that garners a huge number of hits a day and is a part of the larger digital social movement, a term usually restricted by definition to generation, that demands immediate results. As Jenkins was cited before, the digital age requires changes to extend the rights of the First Amendment to these new technologies and methods of communication for the sake of the citizenry. There remains a question to then ask: is digital citizenship a viable model? Will our society become “analogophobic” and utilize only the digital, connected media?

The largest problem to the digital citizenship movement or transition is akin to the introduction of any new media technology. Like the radio before it, television did not clearly mark the end of all popular radio broadcasts; television now occupies the prime real-estate or peak audiences of after dinner entertainment. However the cultural practice of listening to the radio is not foreign or odd as AM and FM stations are the still very popular with a huge audience on their daily commutes to, during, and from their work. This transition happened then and is happening now: the internet is slowly replacing television as the dominant cultural media practice.

“Many industry leaders argue that the main reason that television cannot continue to operate in the same old ways is that the broadcasters are losing younger viewers, who expect greater influence over the media they consume. Speaking at MIT in April 2004, Betsy Frank, executive vice president for research and planning at MTV Networks, described these consumers as ‘media-actives’ whom she characterized as ‘the group of people born since the mid-70s who’ve never known a world without cable television, the vcr, or the internet, who have never had to settle for forced choice or least objectionable program, who grew up with a what I want when I want it view attitude towards media, and as a result, take a much more active role in their media choices.’ Noting that ‘their fingerprints are on the remote,’ she said that the media industry was scrambling to make sense of and respond to sharp declines in television viewership among the highly valued 18-27 male demographic as they defected from television toward more interactive and participatory media channels.” Jenkins, p. 244

These changes happen for several reasons but generally due to the generations of users who find themselves appropriating the new technology as their primary medium into the world. This generation gap still maintains a large divide because computers and the internet are a much different technological model from television and radio. Simultaneously the habits and social practices of internet usage are much more broad, open, unregulated, and interactive as warranted by the base of users and those who create the internet itself. This creates a situation of convergence, as described by Henry Jenkins:

“Convergence represents a paradigm shift – a move from medium-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels, toward the increased interdependence of communications systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture. Despite the rhetoric about ‘democratizing television,’ this shift is being driven by economic calculations and not by some broad mission to empower the public.” p. 243

The beauty of this new convergence is how the ramifications have wholly affected our society and are likely to continue. Digital citizenship is part of this larger movement of social media that includes blogging, video sharing, and social networking. Every aspect of social media can relate to digital citizenship because of the personal expression found in the use of these technologies. Here the use of the word “personal” doesn’t necessarily intend that everyone using the internet is posting or communicating with their real name and information. Rather what everyone shares through the vast size of the internet and its sheer number of users infers individual posts and opinions. Interestingly enough anonymity is also an important part of to the participation of digital citizenship.

The ability to anonymously contribute information or at least use an alias or username provides a level of separation from a citizen to their post to whichever social media. This doesn’t however separate the individual from their beliefs, and often is the case that more often than not users don’t abuse the anonymity to sabotage a discussion or process. The significance of anonymous contributions through the screen of protection from one’s true identity is that it renders all users the same. Whereas in the physical public sphere one’s appearance is the most obvious detail for an audience to prejudice, a username or an avatar only provide a glimpse into someone’s composition. Membership is something that certainly can set small restrictions, but most of the public sphere meeting points on the internet do not maintain membership as to guard away minority voices but keeps spammers accountable. Anonymity in this sense is a democratizing process that is oft neglected in discussions about the benefits of a digital public sphere. Within this context a public is freer to converge without fear of reprisal or immediate negation. On the other hand exposing one’s identity and background through their social media can also work as a positive outlet for a more diverse, democratic society. Our social media habits not only include visiting and reading the sites of ours family, friends, and colleagues, but also people we don’t know personally and wouldn’t know personally for whatever reason. Yet through these new media technologies we can build a picture of a person through the information that they allow us to have access to. Joining groups through social media sites is a very easy and popular way to build support behind anything from a potential political candidate to a drink named after golfing legend Arnold Palmer. In this instance through the process of opening up and divulging information a society can have more equal access.

An interesting model to look at in reference to the idea of digital citizenship is the organization MoveOn.org. Originally founded during the 1998 impeachment process of President Clinton, the creators, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, “shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation’s focus at the time” ¹; MoveOn was their response to push for a “move on to pressing issues facing nation”.² The organization boasts over three million members that has been gathered at a steady rate through the lasting presidency of George W. Bush, which posits about 1% of the total American population. This collection of citizens is a varied political- party- affiliated combination. Blades and Boyd broadened their organization’s goals by renaming to MoveOn.org and becoming a political action committee to help elect progressive candidates. Their website serves a liberal focused agenda where current issues are reported and campaigns are started against pertinent issues. Through their organization they send weekly newsletters, communiqués, and any other relevant information from their ongoing campaigns to their members- all using new digital media technologies, primarily email. An interesting section they have arranged on their website is the “Recent Success Stories” page. These two pages, one for 2006-today and one for 2004-2005, highlight how their members across all fifty states have helped certain candidates become elected, pressed for issues to be covered more publicly, donated money to certain civic or political causes, and signed numerous petitions for and against on-going political issues both domestic and international. MoveOn.org has built and maintained a devout following because they give the average, lowly citizen a tangible course of action to affect the political process.

The significance of MoveOn.org is how their internet activism has reached so many different people across the United States. Though founded and formulated in and around our nation’s capital, Blades and Boyd have built an extensive assemblage from all corners of the United States. They have devoted followers who choose to support many, if not all, their causes very quickly and approvingly. The activism and success of MoveOn.org is akin to a politically motivated type of crowdsourcing; “the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people, in the form of an open call,”³ very similar to Wikipedia’s approach. They focus the time and energy of their membership towards a specific issue en-masse and are much more likely to raise awareness in the larger populous and potentially solve a problem or push for legislation. MoveOn.org represents a complete example of a digital citizenry at work. Organizations like MoveOn.org exploit the differences between traditional media and new media- interactivity, immediate response, and collaboration as opposed to dissemination. Through the spectrum of new media the convergence traditional democratic processes transition to digitally connected outlets and are exponentially amplified. This newer model allows the informed citizen to troll through the internet to find places for them to read, write, and participate in ongoing discussions. Though MoveOn.org claims success for their organization, can their model be employed for a larger percentage of the United States population? For me it would not be difficult to imagine voting online in the future or through email ballots; of course security is a concern but there are business incentives already in place to increase the detection of fraud. To many, it remains a difficult task to continually juggle real life and virtual life (or lives) as each require a concentrated effort, but digital citizenship is something that can improve the public sphere. This advancement requires only that we continue the trends already in place and develop further social habits involving newer media technologies. As newer technologies are unveiled we must protect them from consumerism and continue towards a more liberating democratic society. We must continue the effort for equality and through this newer model it is ever more achievable.

“Consumers will be more powerful within convergence culture- but only if they recognize and use that power as both consumers and citizens, as full participants in our culture.” Jenkins p. 260

And a little Foucalt before I go.

Notes

1. Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, “About the MoveOn Family of Organizations”, April 10, 2008, http://www.moveon.org/about.html.
2. Ibid.
3. Information taken from the Wikipedia entry “Crowdsourcing”, on April 10, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing.

References

Carr, Nicholas (2008) The Big Switch: Rewiring The World, From Edison to

Google. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York.

Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

New York University Press: New York.

Tapscott, Don (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation.

McGraw-Hill Publishing: New York.

Travers, Ann (2000) Writing the Public in Cyberspace: Redefining Inclusion on

the Net. From the Series American Popular History and Culture. Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York.

If you haven’t played with Nintendo newest video game console yet, then you must be living under a bridge, in a a cave, or without a care for fun in the world. To date it is the best-selling 7th generation video game system worldwide, toppling the technologically superior and flashy Playstation 3 (Sony) and X Box 360 (Microsoft). The Nintendo Wii is inspired after the American homophone it resembles- consider that the system is designed for multi-player play and it makes sense. The most enticing function is the motion control Wii Remote, often dubbed the “Wiimote“, which boasts three dimensional acceleration detection, Bluetooth connectivity, and an infrared sensor for pointing (a callback to the NES Zapper light gun). With a less complex remote control the system is marketed to a much broader spectrum of people including those markets that video game and system developers find hard to reach: females of all ages, middle-aged previous video game system owners, and the elderly.

Where as the other 7th generation video game systems geared up for the digital television age of high definition content and equally high-tech sound systems, Nintendo decided to build a system with a focus on fun to bring excitement back to the field. While in development the game was billed as “Revolution” and though it was shortened to the cutesy “Wii” the sentiment remains- if I can use my own experience as an example: The last video game console I owned was the Sega Genesis system, part of the fourth generation, and I haven’t purchased one since because I’ve always had a computer and thus computer games. Most of the games I played were simultaneously released on consoles systems with maybe a bit less graphics or features, however at this point in time to continue to upgrade my computer to work for newer, flashier games would be an expensive endeavor. Enter the Nintendo Wii, a simple, sleek, and fun system that is attractive because of its small size and relative ease of use. Everyone of my friends plays has played with the Wii as most of my relatives and family members. The ability to wave the wand to get the intended motion on screen is incredibly satisfying and addictive.

Other key features of the Wii console are the wireless internet connection that allows for multi-player gameplay from across the globe, backwards compatibility to the previous systems’ library of games, and extreme cult-like popularity. With the internet connection, software updates can be performed, challenging friends can be achieved, and especially important is the archived library of games. Nintendo knows what nostalgia is and has keyed into what reminiscing today’s twenty-somethings have with their original video game system: the NES. It is akin to wearing a badge of honor to say you’ve spent hours tackling some of the hardest and most complex video games originally designed that set the template for future gamers and developers. To be able to download, at an average of $5 a game, older titles like Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda allows Nintendo to not only make a little more money but also gives the best-selling video games a second renaissance.

Overall I would have to argue that the Wii has brought me back to a point of happiness and satisfaction that is often hard to find in the age of computers that we live in. Because I can easily pick it up and play it with anyone I find it extremely enjoyable and addictive. Soon we may see pool halls converted into Wii-halls? Who knows how this system will change our social behavior in the future?

“Behind every great and abusive monopoly almost always lies a network- and not only a network, a network which has been co-opted, which has been turned into a discriminatory network, and which is used to carry out and further the power of the monopoly” – Timothy Wu, Columbia Law Professor, speaking at staff briefing for the House Commerce Committee on Capital Hill on February 15th

These strong words are addressing the important and extremely timely issue of net neutrality. The referenced network is both the infrastructure (physical connections to hubs) and the operation (network management) which is owned by the vast, few corporate telecommunications companies. What is meant by neutrality is that internet service providers (ISPs) do not (and should not) determine a different quality or type of service to their customers based upon the content they are accessing. The current system of ISPs that are in place throughout the United States conducts business almost completely as a monopoly- meaning they set their own standards of service and stomp out any competition through open and/or closed practices. They, like Standard Oil operating the railway network in the past, control the connections and the service while also holding the ability (and accusation) to filter our content (deep packet inspection). Comcast was recently lambasted publicly at the FCC Hearing held on February 25th for such discriminatory practices, specifically those targeting users of peer-to-peer file-sharing software (p2p).

This meeting was one of the first steps of the FCC to come to a defined stance on the issue of net neutrality, and hopefully not the last as they continue their campaign to ensure Comcast isn’t violating any laws. However Comcast and Verizon executives both agreed that they did not believe the FCC had the power to regulate their private business practices- and by any laissez-fare understanding that should be the case. However, this instance is different because of what is at stake: access to a public network through private means. The internet is a public realm of free speech, the most extreme example our society has seen. The telecommunications giants continue to claim to see, hear, nor do no evil. What is remarkable about this issue is how not only the American public has come together to fight for this issue, but how it has world wide ramifications and has brought a diverse amount of different people from all political, social, economic, and racial groups.

“The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net” – Tim Berners-Lee, Inventor of the World Wide Web

As we are all aware the internet has dramatically changed our society and the world moreover. The ability to access information freely and without discrimination is paramount our freedom as a democratic society. Thankfully we, the internet population, are not without representation in our government to help this fight. At the same time I feel that any American policy on net neutrality will have great ramifications leading to similar causes in other nations, akin to the “Atlantic Revolutions” that followed our own War of Independence.

For my closing remarks I turn to an internet phenom, Ask a Ninja.

Yesterday I attended the public hearing held by the FCC at Harvard Law School that was addressing allegations lodged against Comcast and other ISPs that they deliberately have (and continue) to delay and block P2P applications to and from their users, whom are paying customers. No matter if the files being shared are legal or not, these ISPs have been accused of managing their networks unfavorably to the file-sharers all across the United States.

I was invited to the event by my Professor, David Monje, whom shares a friendship, academic and otherwise, to the members of FreePress.net. From FreePress’ perspective this was billed as an attemp “To Save The Internet” as Net Neutrality is a major lobbying issue for this non-profit organization. I was really excited to be there and hear what both sides had to say.

There was a lot of enlightening information from both panels, specifically panelists Marvin Ammori, Yochai Benkler, Timothy Wu, Richard Bennet, David Clark, and Eric Klinker. These men are all from different backgrounds surrounding the internet and this issue of net neutrality. I am going to follow from the notes I took and expand from what kind of discussion developed.

David Cohen, the Executive Vice President of Comcast, made the statement that all internet networks, no matter how small or grandiose, are managed- their has to be some type of management or else the network will not function properly. He went on to explain (in response to Marvin Ammori’s comments) that what Comcast has been doing is within their rights as their language has changed in their Terms of Service; “For example, these network management activities may include … (iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions during periods of high network congestion, and (v) using other tools and techniques that Comcast may be required to implement in order to meet its goal of delivering the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers“. Mr Cohen specifically stated that all of this delaying and blocking is a result of network management from congestion during peak hours. These agreements that Comcast has with their customers do not explicitly state define congestion, the hours of peak traffic, the manner or practices of delay. This was a major point of the other panelists during the Policy Perspectives first half of the hearing. A final point that Mr Cohen made was at the request of the FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, who asked both Mr Cohen of Comcast and Tom Tauke, an Executive VP for Verizon, if they believed that the FCC has the power and right to levy fines against these companies for these allegations- Mr Cohen stated replied “No”. Responding as the opposing argument was Timothy Wu stating his understanding of their attitude: “Comcast is blocking Bit Torrent and that’s the end of the story“- they feel there is no reason for the FCC to be involved in a seemingly minority issue within their customer base nor do they feel reprehensible for their actions (mp3 of this excerpt).

A few different metaphors were used to describe ongoing situation of the ISPs versus the various content providers of the internet, Vuze included, and the best was the idea that the internet is a horse race where the ISP’s own the track, charge admission, control the gates, and are running a horse. This was viewed as a unfair and unethical business practice to most of the members of the first panel. At one point Marvin Ammori incited that these cable-television providing ISPs were now the Old Media in comparison to the world wide web, the New Media, and that they were grasping onto the last vestiges of control that they could before being pushed to the wayside as radio and network television has. This comment was pompous but still worthy to note because no matter Comcast or Verizon’s true intentions this is a fairly accurate assumption of their current actions.

A very interesting discussion arose out of the second Technological Perspectives panel, which was less attended by many, that addressed the ability of the ISP’s broadband size. Comcast and Verizon are primarily telecom companies that serve the majority of the US with broadband(+) internet access; it was stated by the second panel that for television broadcasts the average consumer will download over 200 megabits of content whereas through the internet they only access 20 megabits [I could be horribly wrong in the memory of these figures, but the resulting picture that was painted was the same significance] a month. These telecoms have bandwidth issues and cannot guarantee the quality service that is marketed throughout the day because of congestion. Their solution to the bandwidth hogs is to delay or block their service by recognizing the protocols the applications use. The point is that the physical cable has been laid and will continue to be strewn about the country as demand sticks around, but whether or not the ISP’s like it more and more people are watching less television and in its stead downloading, uploading, streaming, and engaging in file-sharing. A question I ask that wasn’t clearly explained was whether or not the television signals paths could be used for internet transmissions or that these were not the same tubings. But moving beyond that, more and more bandwidth is required to meet today’s demand and tomorrow’s growing internet usage.

Oddly and coincidently enough also attending the hearing was my best friend’s father, a field engineer for Comcast. He is in charge of one of the nodes that is the centralized meeting point for a community/neighborhood’s signal for television and internet access. He told me that Comcast, and probably also Verizon, had previously had over 2000 residential homes linked to one node and has worked that figure down around 500 more recently [I am unsure whether or not these is the same for most areas with Comcast's service but assume it likely]. Even with this change and increase in bandwidth over the past five years they still experience massive network congestion between 7pm-11pm. I asked him about the alleged practices and he said that it was a part of the network management above his position that looks at the network on the whole, even though Comcast states that the delaying and blocking of p2p services is only done at a local level, in distinct situations, in distinct areas. This understanding came to the FCC commissioners who asked what these companies were doing about the bandwidth issues beyond network management practices, and Mr Cohen replied that the investment to lay more cable/fiber/etc. wasn’t enough to meet the demand at these congestive hours. Is it likely that the duopoly of these two companies will buck up and foot the bill? No.

This means that the areas without broadband access, mostly rural in the US, are without what most Americans consider absolutely necessary and what most small, entrepreneurial, and/or non-profit businesses need to compete with content providers like Comcast and Verizon. This interesting argument brings in ethics, which was not directly mentioned or addressed by any of the commissioners. Yet again to get back to the horse race metaphor, with the ISPs controlling the gates and running their own horse what would stop them from holding back their competition? Threats from the FCC? Not by Mr Cohen’s response [something I did not know at the time was that Chairman Martin has got some issues]. I do not think that the ISPs should be barred from displaying their content through the internet but to deal with the duopoly that exists there needs to be some standards, practices, maybe even legislation to help net neutrality not fall to the wayside of corporate influence. The discrimination of certain types of content to users/consumers is wrong and the ISP doesn’t have the right.

Beyond that David Clark, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT, went into the mythos of delaying and blocking that has occurred. He explained how messages are sent across a network from one user to another for a request of a file, very similar to our current snail mail or email processes it requires sender, receiver, and routing information. Without opening the letter all of this is available to the network in order to send the message properly, but Comcast specifically was targeted for “reset packet” techniques. Here’s a quick explanation of this: “The RESET packet is used when a computer receives a packet that is not associated with any connection. By sending a RESET signal, the source is telling the destination “I have no connection information for you, so close your connection.” When a computer receives a RESET it deletes any information it has about the connection in question“. Thereby Comcast is wrongfully opening the contents of these messages from their users, inspecting the contents, and making a judgment as whether to continue or delay. As Mr Clark said “Internet service providers should not impose a value judgment on the consumer” their responsibility relies in relaying the message. David Reed, an Adjunct Professor at MIT as well, continued by saying Comcast’s secretive practices are wrong. “The internet providers don’t provide the internet to customers” but rather they provide access.

This gets to the heart of net neutrality. Is deep packet inspection the right of the ISP in order to manage their network the most efficiently? Is this discrimination the right of the ISP because of the manner in which they employed their network with a 20-1 download-to-upload ratio in mind? And if this duopoly exists how can any other businesses hope to break into this market to provide a different and better internet service? This leads me into the last point I want to address: disclosure. Comcast and Verizon were chastised for their lack of disclosure about their policies and requirements unto the consumers when congestion exists, even with their updated terms of services. Marvin Ammori stated that more transparency is needed in order for other businesses to compete against these two giants, in addition transparency is needed to ensure the rights of the consumers who enter into their contracts.

Overall the experience was extremely enlightening and valuable. To witness this important issue firsthand was great and I encourage others to attend the upcoming hearings that the FCC will hopefully host to help raise public knowledge and receive direct feedback from our consumer industry. What I really hope is that the FCC will entrust in the American citizenry the right to free and open access to the internet.

last.fm the social music revolution

That is the simple motto to the bar that tops this company’s website. Last.fm is a bit difficult to explain in the age of new media: it is both a website, a separate download-able application, a plug-in for other software, and a music streaming internet service.

All-in-all this company provides a great service to people all over the world- by latest counts there are 13 different language sites that support several nationalities each.

Last.fm, as it now stands, was purchased by CBS Corporation for over $280 million this past year, and is noted for its active and fastly growing membership of atleast 15 million people. So how does a small, seemingly niche website like last.fm become so worthy and popular? (it is easily personalized and takes very little to maintain are my answers)

Founded in 2002 by a group of Austrian and German music aficionados, the site served as a internet radio station with membership that shared their playlists with one another to create dynamic recommendations. In 2003 last.fm moved to London along with Audioscrobbler, a plug-in that tracks music played through programs like iTunes or Winamp and then lists that information online. These two worked together to help match members’ music taste to artists they hadn’t “scrobbled” yet, resulting in a freely personalized broadcasted internet streaming radio station of music recommendations, or more simply put “listen to this stuff, we think you might like it.“

Last.fm has now added additional services and features that calculate your musical neighbors (people who have similar tastes), additional put your friends’ musical taste into your recommendations, artist pages listing relevant information and streaming or downloading whole tracks, and also allow you to tag certain artists to help create genres or group of related music. The site also can pull information off of portable music players, like your iPod, to continue to track your music even when you aren’t connected to the internet.

The site received initial funding through venture capitalist-istic private investment, then later straight venture capitalist investment, and now maintains functionality of its relatively small staff through internet advertising sales (which suprisingly do not nearly make up even a large portion of each page).

An interesting point to note is that all of last.fm’s services are completely free and membership doesn’t require any real information. The benefit to someone like myself is that I don’t have to give up my information, money, or much active time to get something great in return. I am sure that the music industry also extremely appreciates this service regardless if they are getting money per track being played by an artist, they are able to see how popular they music is. The chart features of last.fm allow users to see who is listen, when, and to a relative degree where (atleast nationality). For example Radiohead, who made big headlines releasing their record online for free, would only be able to track how many people initially downloaded their music but with the assistance of last.fm they are able to see how many times people listened to their album and which tracks were and are the most popular as time moves on.

So get scrobbling with the new way to listen and find music!

What do

have in common? They are all viral videos.

Viral Videos are extremely popular videos that are shared by audiences through many different means and mediums, most commonly YouTube. These videos are often short, simple, and funny; made by amateurs or non-professional videographers; deal with current issues; and comment on popular culture. The phenomenon of the popularity of seemingly random videos is only capable because of the internet. Internet access allows people from all over the world to make, watch, and share clips of whatever interests they have and also see what is interesting to others. The traffic of video-sharing (a.k.a. file-sharing) websites can generate large amounts of income for companies, which led to the purchase of YouTube by internet giant Google Inc. for $1.65 billion, clearly an enormous amount of money for a simply-made website.

Beyond the monetary success of sites and companies- YouTube (everything), iFilm (semi-professional short films), Dailymotion (mostly home video content), and Vimeo (television and movie clips)- advertisers have been keen to make their own campaigns popular through the same formula of other viral videos, or some day find their own product being popularized throughout the world wide web. This has even led to a viral video being spread around detailing of a fake institution to learn about making a successful viral video. Viral videos may come from commercials through television but only make the leap from the internet to television through news broadcasts, commodification, or insane amounts of conventional media coverage.

So if you feel left out of the loop during a conversation by the office water cooler, chances are that you haven’t seen the latest viral video.

“ELT” by Wilco is my favorite song right now and for probably the past year. Off of one of their older albums, Summerteeth, this song’s course states “Every little thing is gonna tear you apart” and for some reason it resonates with me. The song is extremely catchy and much more pop-oriented than a lot of the other folksy tunes that Jeff Tweedy and his ensemble jam out. Seriously check out this band, listen to all their albums, and tell me that Summerteeth isn’t the best.

Also check out Mermaid Avenue Volume 1, a Woody Guthrie found-lyric tribute-esque album performed by members of Wilco (primarily Tweedy) and Billy Bragg as well as a few other personnel.

Pitchforkmedia is a haven for those in the need of independent, popular, and otherworldly music information. This site details musicians through in-depth album reviews, often celebrity hosted interviews, and archives all its stories to allow you to become an expert on anybody. In the past few years the site has become the premiere place for audiophiles to get the stories about events in the music world, but thankfully the increase in traffic hasn’t changed the site- they steer clear of flashy, gawker-esque fanfare of lead singers with drug habits.

The main page divides the site into three columns (News, Record Reviews, and the Forkcast) with smaller delineations past the fold (Best New Music, Features, Previous Week’s News). Every page is time-stamped red with the date, if not the time, leading with the latest stories first. A dark grey, bolded text covers all the titles with a lighter grey underneath for the subtitle of every page. A cloud-like mix of blues and off-whites mixes behind all the text and pictures (one per section).

The only two advertisements on the home page and other pages are a heading banner and a side box; they mix between upcoming album releases of artists already on the site and other websites were you can download music. Pitchfork itself doesn’t propagate illegal file-sharing but rather their links for downloadable or streaming music are often from the musicians own pages, be it MySpace or something similar.

The site is very attractive because of the simple lay-out that is easy for anyone to navigate. It definitely has a core group of followers, independent music junkies, but anyone and everyone should check it out to see what Pitchfork says about a band. For once that group makes it big we will all wonder where they came from and what others said first.