Reading Quiz 10.30.2008

1. CWN's are Community Wireless Networks. These potentially contribute to communities by allowing open, non proprietary wireless access to citizens for little or no cost to them at all. Being built and run by the government, maintenance fees and building fees would be covered with the taxes of the land. Students and community members will have more free and open access that will contribute to the overall sharing of communication and information. The "Digital Divide" between resource rich and resource poor areas can potentially be closed as information and wireless access become available to areas that were overlooked or not targeted by cable companies. Wireless networks are generally less expensive than the cable and wire networks we are familiar with now. That being said, CWN's will provide equal access to wireless and Internet technology which will contribute to the overall flow and sharing of information.

2. Major wireless network companies protect their monopoly's by creating proprietary networks and products that are not adaptable to other networks or technological products. According to Meinrath, "technological standards (often set by industry groups to ensure their own profitability rather than establishing the best option for the public) of these technologies" (220). Instead of caring for the best interest of others, industry providers usually care most about the profitability of the company. Company and industry mergers contribute to locking the industry. An example given in the book is the merger between Cingular and AT&T. Logically, one would think that prices would go down when something like this takes place, however when Cingular the new AT&T decides to pay to use Sprints infrastructure, it is just another way to limit and control service instead of expanding it. The plan is to confuse the people so that switching and searching for the better service and better options become more impossible and unable to do.
Bundling is also an issue in the competing technological industry. This is another way to lock out the competition and to mislead the public by selling inferior products to maintain control over competition (221). Intel sells a bundle like deal where you can get two chips and two different services for one price. However, less expensive options do exist and have proven in some cases to be more reliable than this bundled chip. Meinrath states that, "a Centrino notebook is a 'bundled' product. Like most bundled products, (for example, the add-on services that phone companies always try to sell their customers), this is a bum deal for the end user" (221).

3. Corporate consolidation and the early buying of technologies result in fewer companies controlling more of the wireless market shares because if larger companies are buying out all of the small technologies, than they are cornering the market and securing profitability for only a few people who can afford to act quickly. The example from the book features Behemoth wireless telecommunications companies investing in, "new technologies before they had even entered the mainstream consumer market, often paying an enormous premium to protect themselves from possible future competition (and passing these costs on to consumers)" (220). Companies lock the market and overcharge consumers because they can. With no competition, there are no other options for the consumer who is looking to save money. Companies like Microtell Communications have bought up all the assets of companies like MobileStar that have gone bankrupt for cheap, and, "the end result has been a steady march toward fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of wireless market share" (220).

Money as Debt

In class, we watched a video dealing with money as debt and it truly opened my eyes. I always wondered where money came from and why it didn't just grow on trees. This entire discussion reminds me of one as a little child. Do you often recall the times when you may have asked for money from your parents and they say, "Who do you think I am? Do you think money grows on trees?" Children often reply yes, and parents are quick to share that the abundance of money is not the case. Through this movie, I was able to see how money is "created", how it becomes important to us, and why there is generally limited access to it. In easy terms, money used to be limited because gold, what people traded and considered to be valuable was limited. However, through the banking industry little paper promissory notes have been developed that are easily traded through society. This is great initially if each paper really did accurately represent the amount of money backing it up in the safe, yet it doesn't. Bankers as well as the government are able to make up money through loans and mortgages a.) according to the signed agreement of the patrons obligation to pay the debt back, and b.) based on the actual money they have in the bank. For example, for ever gold dollar that actually exist in a banks safe another 9 dollars can be created.
There a few problems with this system. First, if the initial gold depositors desire their gold back, then much of the system will collapse because the bank may not have enough to accommodate the requests. Second, money is made up to give out loans and mortgages from the banks. The banks add interest, and that leads to the question of where that money will come from. If people are borrowing money to begin with, where would they really get money to pay this additional expense? It is a moral, ethical, and practical issues. The last issue I will bring up and discuss is that we are forever put in a system of debt. If everything were paid off, there would be no money because there would be no loans or made up money to support other made up money. My opinion is that this system is inconsistent and unreliable, and needs to be completely revamped. I like the ideal of the local barter system where people can borrow money and pay it back without interest.

Looking at Grignon's 4 critical challenge questions, I answer as follows:

1. Why do governments choose to borrow money from private banks at interest when the government could just create all the interest free money it needs itself?
* Governments choose to borrow money from private banks instead of creating it themselves because these private businesses and corporations, including banks are what drives the economy and are what support the world trade system.
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?

3. How can a money system based on perpetual accelerating growth be used to build a sustainable economy?

4. What needs be changed to allow the creation of a "sustainable economy"?
* The entire system of money needs to be changed in order to create and encourage a sustainable economy.

FCC Reading Response

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.

* There is not a complete yes or no answer to this question. In some instances, I feel that radio and television quickly respond to local issues, but I don't feel that it is done as quickly and effectively as it could be. If I may be clearer, I don't feel that radio does a good job in effectively responding to local issues, at least the stations that people are listening to. There may be talk radio stations that cater to the needs and views of the local community, but many music stations, which is what my age demographic generally listen to don't focus on local issues that resonate in the community unless it is of relevance to them, their station, or in promotion of some sort of affiliate or corporate partner. Local television news shows do tend to be more local in their broadcasts, but I am noticing that they are no longer as community oriented either. For example, national coverage is put on the political election of our new presidential leader. However, there is less coverage on local elections and positions available. Overall, I feel that the television and radio could do more in focusing on the needs of the community and not just what is interesting to them. I think to accurately answer this question, we need to separate the needs of a community verses the interest and desires.


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?

* Local programming and Public Media Values should be available and provided by broadcasters in my opinion. Local news programs should be provided as well as local coverage on important events that are highlighted in the community. For example, a local high school commencement should be covered in local news programs because it is relevant to the city and community. This is local news that people will really care about because it will relate to them. I think that access to local programming is made available to citizens, but the loopholes and things you have to do to access these opportunities makes it so it is almost unattainable. For example, my local news channel in Milwaukee allows for kids to read the lunch menu for the city school system and will sometimes highlight local artists and theater, but those usually come at the end of a segment or are a short segment at the end of the program when no one is watching anymore.


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.

* Localism in broadcasting can be promoted by allowing time for community representatives giving community news. This would be done in collaboration not only with news shows, but with networks to allow access to broadcasting at affordable rates for citizens. Examples of localism that are in affect currently are:
One example is the UTOPIA ( Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency), which is a project that will provide quality, low cost cable services by considering cable and the upkeep of them as general city costs. It is a large investment and is definitely localist, but will cause a lot of issues when it comes to larger cable and media providers.
Another example is the wireless public airwaves to give high-speed, wireless access in a way that is public and beneficial to the people. This would allow local community members to voice their opinions without worrying about the major companies over charging or pushing their big, broad, thoughts and ideas.
Another example of localism is the licensing of noncommercial community radio stations. Groups such as the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia have helped to pioneer the movement that promote the local community citizen and artist to dedicated community listeners.
The last example I will use to describe localism is through my personal experience living home at Milwaukee, WI. Although stations are syndicating shows and are forming large conglomerates, the Milwaukee Public School system has an hour show on Saturdays I believe that highlight community happenings within the school system. I think this is an example of localism and local communities taking advantage of media access.

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?

Response to the Struggle of Free Press

When reading McChesney's article and comparing his opinions to the realities I perceive in the media and government, I came to question whether the media is contributing to our society or if it is an eroding factor, contributing to the general deterioration of it. McChesney highlighted the lack of concern American society has in regards to voting and toward traditional moral values that our nation has been built on since its founding. Instead of the focus being on establishing a truly democratic society, it seems that government is solely devoted to capitalism and capitalistic ideas. Reading this essay and based on the realities that I currently live, I ask whether America society is geared at promoting democracy or if money and capital is the driving factor? Is democracy just a way to cover America's solely capitalistic and profitable ways? When commenting on the the media system in our society McChesney says, "the media system is set up to maximize profit for a handful of large companies. They system works well for them, but it is a disaster for the communication needs of a healthy and self-governing society."(11)

I agree that for a healthy and self-governing society, our media must be revamped so that it offers the most beneficial information concerning the public. In relation to our current political climate and situation, I notice the media does not really focus on the issues on the candidates, but on the candidates themselves. While this is an important aspect of choosing a leader that one must consider, policy contributes to most of what we want in a leader. We need to know what this person can do for us. We need information that will let us know whether we are choosing a leader that will have the best interest of the people in our democracy in mind, and will not have hidden agendas to expand and concentrate their business within the respective industry they are a part of. McChesney states that "the solution to the the media crisis requires widespread, informed public participation in media policy making."(12) Our media system and government system cannot and will not be positively changed until the public becomes informed on issues, and is capable and willing to participate in the creating of policies.

Come on Big Business, He's Just an Amateur!

The case on the Critical Art Ensemble is an interesting one to me. I always had my own personal thoughts on the pharmaceutical and food administrative industries, and this case further feeds my interest. It began when I was a little girl. My mother was always very critical of the foods we ate and the use of plastic. She always commented about the chemicals in things and how they would affect us in the future. When I was younger, I thought all the stuff she said was nonsense and that she was just being paranoid. However, as I have gotten older and have learned things for myself, I understand that there is a great deal of truth in what she was saying. Beyond what my mother taught, I took Topics in Nutrition, a class offered here at Marist and my teacher was a very purist/organic type. I appreciated her methods because she explained the different toxins in foods that our bodies do not positively react to. She also shared with us how food was not as pure as it should be because the industry is only interested in profiting at the expense of the people. She also mentioned how cures and remedies were not pursued because it would collapse the pharmaceutical industry, who want to keep us hooked on over-the-counter drugs that only temporarily relieve our ailments.

Now that I've given a little background on my views about food, pharmaceuticals, food processing, and chemicals, understand that I was not surprised by this case. Sadly, an act that was put in place for the benefit of people and American Society to enhance our public safety has been misused and abused. It is not fair that little guys are attacked when they challenge a large industry or corporation. When this happens, we loose sight of the things our country was built on. Things like freedom of speech, public opinions, and privacy. It was unfair for Steve Kurtz and CAE to be trialed on account of sharing research and bio-organisms. In this country, we are encouraged to be thinkers, be critical, and be creative. The government attempted to stifle his efforts on creativity, criticism, and expression, and I'm glad they failed. Additionally, Kurtz was not even an official "accredited" and professional scientist. All of the things he did were basic and done in the eye of the public.

By Kurtz being an amateur scientist, he felt that he was able to be under the radar. Because he was an amateur, it would more difficult for him to be corrupted by big industry because his career did not depend on it. The author of this article questions why artist are needed to be scientist in order to get public attention about the food we eat. She states that (Pentecost, 3):
"[I]t is precisely because of our status as non-scientist, as non-experts, not invested in careers in the field, it's because of our status as amateurs, that artists are able to render important issues to a public through the public space accorded to art in our culture. This is because of what is happening in the sciences, an intense case of transformation of knowledge for the public good, into knowledge privatized and applied to profit for a few."
CAE and Kurtz worked to expose the happenings of big industry. I take this subject to heart because we are the food we eat, and it is important to know what we are putting in our bodies. I was shocked when I read that there are really no studies on genetically engineered food, and the study that did happen was shut down after having found some damaging information.

When comparing this case and the discussion of The Cult of the Amateur, I feel that this is a valid point against Keens case. Keen argues that the amateur is taking over the industries and is making it hard for big businesses that have been around for a while to be profitable. What I brought up earlier in the class and what I bring up now is what if those big businesses need to be destroyed? What if the system does need to be revamped and revised? In the case of the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, I believe that is the case.

Disguising the invasion of ones house and property with the PATRIOT act is a low blow. I feel that this act was genuinely put in place to further protect American people. However, I feel that the government is abusing and misusing this tool to survey people without them knowing and using the information for their own personal interest. This is unacceptable. Privacy is one of the freedoms we have been granted as Americans, and through the PATRIOT act, we continue to loose it on tiny step at a time. The government seems to use fear to insist the use and the need for the PATRIOT act. It should be used to help protect our country, not to blind us by hiding valid truths.

In closing, the amateur has shoved industry in the shoulder. The amateur has proven to do what what the professional cannot and will not do. This is sad because we assume that doctors and scientist have the best interest of the people in mind, but many times, they are only after money and profit.

Quest on Cult of the Amateur

Surveillance Technology Modify's Behavior

New technology is wonderful and has opened many doors for people to be exposed to things they would not have otherwise been. It is also very dangerous as it progresses because the amount of information being fed into the Internet through Web 2.0 can be extremely dangerous. So much information is shared online, and there is so much potential for people to watch and be watched. It's not just a matter of keeping your information private anymore. The issue is that there is no privacy, and that people are constantly being watched. This surveillance issue is contributing to our information being put out to the world, but it also modifies our behavior and actions by us knowing that we are constantly being watched.

Let's first talk about Google Earth. My first impression of this technology was, "wow, this is kind of cool". However, later on as it grew and as my house became exposed to the entire world when my address was entered in Google, it made me think how potentially dangerous this could be. People can not only find out my address and know where I live, they can Google it and see where I live. I for one am not pleased at this new technology because I think it has potential to breed stalkers.

Secondly, one of my partners shared a story with me about a man working at Dunkin Donuts who fought while being robbed because he was concerned with his image and what people would think when they saw this video on you tube! This is ridiculous! The robber could have shot and killed this guy or beat him up really badly, yet all he thinks about is the surveillance video getting on you tube and what people would think of him. This story is a little different because instead of the information being put out there unwillingly or unknowingly, this guy intentionally modified his actions so that he could place the video on youtube.

Thirdly, we brought up the issue of constantly being watched, filmed, or photographed even without knowing it. Student athletes are required to follow very strict rules, some of them including not having inappropriate pictures (pictures with alcohol and other such things) being taken and posted anywhere. The issue is that people, anyone can take a picture or video these days, post it, and you won't even know. Coaches, employers, professors, and anyone are constantly looking out for pictures and such. There is no sense of privacy anymore which is sad.

The main theme of discussion amongst our group is that this surveillance technology can be so destructive because it heightens peoples awareness of people watching all around them. People know that they are constantly being watched and this modifies and influences their behaviors and actions. This problem is evolving in such a way that people know they are being surveyed and are doing things to get attention. I am personally terrified of where this technology can go, but on the side, I am excited about all the positive possibilities resulting from this technology.