VoIP impact on the status quo...

After last week's reading and looking at additional resources related to the VoIP phenomena, I realized that it won't last. And by "it", I mean the ability to circumvent the entire traditional telephony infrastructure. New technology remains underground for only so long before the big wigs of the world realize the monetary implications and buy it all up. They will use the 911 issue to squash smaller companies and offer larger VoIP companies an offer they can't refuse. The baby bell's will get bigger and the price will be passed on to the consumer.

VoIP's impact on current telephonic systems and companies will be insignificant when compared to the current systems impact on VoIP. I can't imagine that the FCC and the status quo are going to lay quietly while a "rogue" communication resource flies below the radar lowering profits along the way. As we see in Canada, the party can't last much longer.

10.2: It never even occurred to me!

How self-absorbed do I feel right now? Prior to this article, I never took the time to realize how internet technology and website development might affect persons with disabilities. It makes me wonder how accessible my office website is. Our extensive use of PDFs and graphics might be our downfall.

I was surprised that the government had made acccessibility guidelines such a priority in 1999 but am curious as the to the extent of its follow-up and follow through. It leaves me with several questions: Have accessibility guidelines been extended into the private sector? If so, what are the consequences for non-compliance? And are companies working on better software/tools for disability accessibility?

10.1: Is the Internet getting the job done?

As we saw in this last election, the internet may be the "ultimate organizing tool" but it failed to get the vote. While Trippi raised record amounts for Howard Dean over the internet, Rove sat outside churches and scared the bajesus out of Middle America. Dean didn't even win a primary.

The main problem I see is this, the same generation that utilizes technology to its utmost potential is still the generation that is apathetic when it comes to voting as a whole. This will change as we get older and politics will evolve as the needs of the voting constituency changes. By that time, the internet will no longer be "cutting edge" in political organizing but it will be the obvious route to the voting block.

The other interesting thing I found in these readings was the appalling lack of knowledge, credibility and reliability of election officials, evoting companies and the machines themselves. My question is this, if so many people lack of faith in electronic voting why are we pushing it so hard? Who's controlling the full-throttle mentality behind this apparently flawed system? Are why isn't more being done to slow down the process to ensure a "best practices" approach to the entire system?

9.1: "Public" Creates Concerns

Americans take freedom of speech for granted. It's amazing when you start looking at international access to information, or lack there of, just how lucky we are and how hypocritical. We talk about bringing democracy to the rest of the world but we are too focused on our own agenda to pay attention to real human rights violations around the world. In fact, it is American companies aiding foreign governments in shutting the door to information deemed controversial or against government standards of decency, "It's sort of sending a message to the regime that it's OK if you are repressing your own people, just don't threaten us and we won't disturb you."

But the system isn't perfect. If you open the doors to information and advocate for universal access you let the good in with the bad. This country has struggled with notions of decency for years and the highest courts have left it up to "community standards" but how does that translate to countries with wide variances in community values.

In my personal opinion, universal access to information is a necessary human right. At the same time information should only be made available with permission from the writer. There will always be questions regarding "public domain" and whether we have any right to privacy. It's a difficult question to answer. People are concerned whether third parties can view internet activity but the truth is we are already being tracked in a variety of ways. While we believe we are leading private lives, our actual "expectation of privacy" is quite low.

Midterm Project Update

I feel very comfortable with my topic but am a little overwhelmed with the amount of data that exists for and against technological globalization. I need help focusing my topic to narrow down the amount of research needed to delve into the subject adequately. I should probably pick a specific country and their current communication policies or choose a very specific question related to ICTs and the third world.

I do feel better about the project after assignment #1. My first round of research went relatively well, especially using Jessica's tips and helpful suggestions.

I am still hazy regarding the size and breadth of the project and it's final resting place (website vs. blog). I like having more structure regarding length of papers but will get over it.

8.2: David and Goliath

I think the similiarities between the two articles are very apparent. Corporate America holds so many of the cards but it isn't siting well with the people. Whether it's economic control or source codes, the general population is growing weary of the "man". Most people don't believe that the United States, internationally speaking, or big business is looking out for anyone besides themselves and their bottom line.

The "controllers" aren't likely to give up control, so the movements begin from the ground up in grass roots efforts to create chanage. With programmers or social activists making small changes or creating new opportunities, ideas and concepts spread, snowballing until they become standard norms or the movement looses momentum.

I saw the impact of global connection during the peace rallies prior to the Iraq War. I saw the benefits of rapid email connection during the 2004 election but I wonder if by using the technology we are supporting a far greater injustice.

I continue to be concerned about technology becoming the 21st Century's avenue for third world oppression. Is my generation utilizing technology to create global awareness at the same time that it's lining the companies that are forcing techno-imperialism?

8.1: Community Building Blogs

Blogging isn't creating community. Community is a natural phenomena that happens, it's not necessarily forced or created by a third party. Blogging software changes how community looks, not how it's created.

Community used to exist, and still does for many areas, in neighborhoods, churches, clubs and PTAs. Community was restricted by circumstance to a physical location. With the advent of the internet and social software, people are no longer bound to a single location as the source for community building. Blogging opens the door to a wide variety of interested people that otherwise could not participate in the conversation.

However, even with more people participating have we lost something in the transition? Have we foresaken our local personal communities for a world wide community that we may never really know? I don't know the answer.

The internet is a wealth of information but it's stripped of the emotion and context of the human condition. If community is now built within the confines of such a structure, what will we lose?

It could be argued that local communities don't have to be sacrificed to go global but look at the trend. America is already too busy for vacations and plugged in 24/7 while churches and social clubs are struggling to stay afloat. We hardly have enough time for ourselves, let alone the needs of a real-live community. We've chosen instead to connect, somewhat impersonally, to a community that doesn't ask too much of us.

7.2: Communication...friend or foe?

For rural areas, Wi-Fi's expansion will open the world's door and offer opportunities to collaborate, educate and develop economic sustainability. However, it also welcomes the risk of dependence, culture erasure and the loss of national autonomy. It's a fine line that communication scholars are watching carefully.

One concern has been whether local communities could afford, let alone profit from, communication infrastructure. According to Best, Wi-Fi might alleviate those concerns by providing grass-root networks that directly support local areas.

It's inevitable that rural areas will eventually be connected to the rest of the world, but will it open the door to economic prosperity for the third world or be the beginning of a new age of imperialism?

For communication scholars, Wi-Fi will provide a perfect opportunity to study the effects of communication and connection in small areas previously isolated from the rest of the world.

7.1: Good Source to Study

Why wouldn't communication scholars study the open source movement? By freeing up the source code and redistribution rights, software will evolve at an unprecedented pace. According to the GNU Manifesto, open source software will avoid "wasteful duplication of system programming" and efforts will be redirected to "advancing the state of the art." The advancement and hurried evolution of software shouldn't be ignored.

If open source technology penetrates the commercial market, there will be serious implications across the board. It would be irresponsible for the academic community not to study its progress and the pro's and con's of its adoption.

6.2: Democracy, it ain't perfect!

The truth is, I don't expect democracy to be perfect but I do expect it to be somewhat reasonable. It is our right to vote and be represented but we do not have the right to be coddled through the process. If you think voting is hard, do your homework. Or better yet, let's have voter education classes. Unfortunately, no one will go because it's easier to complain after it's all said and done than to be proactive.

Do remember taking the SATs? The rules were simple: Use a No. 2 pencil to fill in the circle completely but not outside the lines. If you don't, your answer will not be recorded. The lesson, be mindful and cautious as you record your answers. Why isn't voting similar? "A hurried checkmark...or an X that is obviously intended to be in a particular box, may under these rules, be discounted!" Your vote shouldn't have to be subjective. I guess my question is this, why do we take voting less than serious; should it be something we hurry through?

6.1 Less is more

Why are we spending millions and millions of tax dollars on electronic voting when no one has proven that it's more secure or easier to use than simpler, cheaper methods? And why can't we standardize one voting method across the board?

These articles prove to me, once again, that government wastes so much time and energy that it's appalling. Instead of properly testing different factors in voting, i.e. methods, machines, ballot design, etc., politicians jump the gun and never confirm actual voting "best practices".

If we looked at voting economically, standardization across all 50 states would create a larger economy of scale lowering costs across the board. If we are willing to spend millions of dollars on faulty systems, it would seem logical that we could find the money to create a better system and properly test it. Our "chauvinism" is at risk if we continue to vote the way we do.

5.2: Machines Like Us

According to Affect and Machine Design, "Animals have developed sophisticated mechanisms for surviving in an unpredictable, dynamic world, coupling the appraisals and evaluations of affect...the result is increased robustness and error tolerance." Why would we want to create machines to act like humans? Wasn't the point to create systems complimenting our shortcomings not adding to them? Affect is the reason we are not logical, timely or accurate. I don't know that I want an anxious computer or one that has the capacity to lie to me.

5.1: Compliments of Technology

Norman's Being Analog does a great job of distinguishing between analog beings and digital technology but he offers no firm solutions to the man vs. machine dilemma. He successfully points out what is wrong with current systems, " most of today's machines...force people to use them on their terms, terms that are antithetical to the way people work and think," but he doesn't detail additional resolutions other than, "[Our difference] is useful only if the machine adapts itself to human requirements." If we adapted computers to human requirements, would technology stop being complimentary?

4.1: If you got it, let me have it.

Technostress. Is this for real? People are stressed out by having too much information? Can there be such a thing?

I believe it was Sir Frances Bacon that said, "Knowledge is Power," and I can only imagine what he would have to say about "technostress." I, too, was blown away by the amount of information that is going up on the web daily but do not find myself wading in stress trying to access it. In fact, I think we need more information, specifically focusing on ways to navigate the system to efficiently and effectively find what we need. Volume isn't the problem, it's accuracy.

Now that every amateur writer has access to global publishing, including this blog, we find the marketplace of ideas littered with garbage (my interpretation of garbage is completely subjective). Nelson offers a list of tools for better searching that, unfortunately, is outdated. I would be interested in learning what is currently available so I can become an empowered ICT user rather than being held "hostage" by the World Wide Web.

In addition, I am curious about the "Deep Web" and am hoping for more information.

Blog 3.1: The Message May Have Been Lost

After wading through McLuhan's The Medium is the Message, I am still unclear if I ever got the message. For me, the "aha" I expected early on occurred in the last paragraph of the last page, "No one can shield himself from such an influence."

McLuhan believes that all media, including the content of that media, is always another medium and that the medium is the actual message, because it "shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." So essentially, we are a product of our media technology rather than the "content" as traditionally understood.

My basic understanding of McLuhan's point is that the United States and other societies based on typographic constructs are on the verge of a cultural clash with electric technology but remain unaware due to conventional rationale that "content" is the significant force to be reckoned with.

While I think it is important to look at the channels in which messages are being delivered, I can't quite get on board with the notion that the vehicle for the message holds the greater significance. If the electric light's message depends on what it lights, isn't the light's subject the greater influence on the message?

Blog 3.2: Creating Our Own Realities

Honestly, what I see as the greatest difference in old and new medias is their degree in flexibility. As technology advances, so does our ability to program, change, delete and crop the world around us. We can now fake giant throngs of people in movies, stimulate conversations in chat rooms and airbrush photos in a magazine. For me it begs the question, what is real anymore?

Granted, there are positive aspects of increased flexibility. We can purchase the precise car we want without stepping foot on a car lot, automatically receive updates for virus software or restore an old photo previously thought of as ruined. The list goes on and on but I really think the negative aspects of technological advancement will have a serious consequence on the social paramenters of our culture if we don't adequetly address them.