Review on "FCC Approves Flawed Net Neutrality Rule" (American Civil Liberties Union Release, 12/21/10)

Continuing my thoughts on my last blog post, thankfully, the FCC approved a net neutrality rule. Unfortunately, it wasn't all too helpful.

"The rule approved today by the FCC includes full network neutrality protections for the wired Internet, which includes cable and DSL service to homes and businesses, but provides lesser protections for wireless broadband service and may allow wireless broadband providers to block certain applications and services that compete with their own applications and services."

Why are wireless Internet users getting the freeze out? While this puts people with wired Internet services leaps and bounds ahead, wireless users are getting jipped by this rule.

According to a New York Times article, though, "nearly 98 percent of American homes now have access to some form of high-speed broadband, but " roughly 20 percent of American adults who do not use the Internet at home, work and school, or by mobile device, a figure essentially unchanged since Barack Obama took office as president in 2009 and initiated a $7 billion effort to expand access, chiefly through grants to build wired and wireless systems in neglected areas of the country."

Many people still don't have Internet, or use it. There are of course more traditional ways to stay informed or learn new things, but the vastness and convenience of the Internet today almost can't compare to going to your local library or reading your subscription to The New York Times. 

Review on Christian Coalition of America's Position on Net Neutrality

I find it kind of strange the Christian Coalition of America, a religious group, stands for net neutrality. For a religious group to support to "maintain a free, open and vibrant Internet," I find it strange because aren't there A LOT of things on the Internet their religion may not support?

Well, the reasoning behind it makes sense. It all comes down to money, because, "consumers could possibly have to pay additional fees to have and maintain websites. The cable/telephone monopoly will then divide the Internet into a 'fast track' and 'slow track' for speed of service."

And after the money aspect of it, that "slow track" could affect organizations like the CCA, as their website may load slower than others, leaving people to pass it by because it didn't load fast enough. 

That's a great reason for the CCA, or any other organization, to support net neutrality. What would happen if half of today's websites were not viewable to the public?

Review on "Google bows to China's censorship demands" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 7/21/10)

What's the use of Google in China if users can't search and find everything they ought to be able to see?  Well, I'm not sure of what other search engines are available in China, and if they are as good as Google, so that's somewhere to start. 

When Google was banned in China for directing them to a mainland site in Hong Kong that was unfiltered, they only came back four months later, agreeing to all of China's demands. Google had promised to abide by the Chinese government, as well as "avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability."

As I suspected, Google doesn't make nearly as much money in China as it does in other countries. The Chinese market accounts for "an estimated $US250 million to $US600 million of Google's projected $US28 billion in revenue this year." However, it is feasible that without "the China platform," Google would not be able "to profit from the expected future growth of the market." 

Review on "Big Brother Is Blocking" (The St. Louis Dispatch, 1/23/08)

The idea of "Big Brother" always watching you is one that creeps me out. It's almost as if anything you say, do, speak or read via modern technology will come with 'someone' watching over your shoulder. 

Verizon's incident with blocking the pro-abortion group NARAL's subscription service text message is all too telling of this "Big Brother" phenomenon. While it's good that phone companies block spam texts, this service was one that people definitely had to go the extra step to sign up for.  

"Verizon cited its policy against services that 'promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.' This is the phone company acting as your mother."

 While abortion is always a hot topic for politics and elections, if phone companies like Verizon have a say in it, where does it end?

Similarly, but less politically motivated, Comcast was found to block access for file-sharing software like BitTorrent. Internet service providers companies like Comcast suggest that softwares like BitTorrent will slow bandwidth, or Internet service for customers. While using software like this isn't like exercising the right to freedom of speech, it's not illegal, and ISP's shouldn't be blocking them.

The article ends as such: "The commission [FCC] should make it clear that the information superhighway is not a tollway."

Agreed. 

Robert McChesney- Corporate Dominance of Media and the Internet (Q&A Session)

Robert McChesney (left)  answers questions as Jeff Cohen (right) moderates the Q&A session. 

Last night, the Park Center for Independent Media brought Robert McChesney to campus for a talk about "Corporate Dominance of Media and the Internet." Aligning quite well with our class discussions in Independent Media, the auditorium was full of Independent Media students, anxious to pick McChesney's brain.

I'll talk about one of the questions in particular, as it is something that I have recently been fascinated by.

Some context: when I knew I wanted to pursue journalism, I obviously started paying attention to the media more closely, following as many stories as I could. My family grew up watching our local FOX affiliate, but once I got to college, I learned that FOX was bad, or at least didn't align with my views. CNN was my favorite, but I think it might have just happened because it was always on in Park, the dining halls and anywhere else IC has a television. I wanted to do broadcast journalism, and I was so sure I wanted to have my own show on CNN, or do something with them.

After watching for so many years, and being exposed to so much more new media, I'm not so sure. Getting back to last night, I'm not sure of what the question was, but it was something on the lines of what McChesney thought about mainstream media like CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

"They don't do journalism; they're just talking heads," said McChesney, "you're just going to watch the person you agree with."

And then it hit me. For so long, CNN is 'who I agreed with,' but after observing them, they're just who I've had the most access to! Is there ever original reporting at places like CNN anymore?

McChesney said that corporations are getting out of journalism, and getting our of paying reporters to cover things. He talked about how conversely, there are about four PR people for every journalist, and about 80-90% of the media reported has been spun. There is no original journalism.

I don't want to be a talking head, and I don't want to report something (or not report something) because it makes my company money. Corporations shouldn't control journalism, but journalism also shouldn't control corporations.

Review on "Bearing Witness 2.0: You Can't Spin 10,000 Tweets and Camera Phone Uploads" (Huffington Post, 7/13/09)

Whenever I read about other countries simply shutting off the Internet or phone service, I absolutely cringe. For someone who clings their iPhone for dear life and uses the Internet daily, I cringe at the thought. Then again, I guess that was life for anyone born before the Internet and mobile phone existed.

"It [the Chinese government] slammed the door in the face of new media -- and offered traditional reporters a front row seat."

It makes perfect sense. The "new media" know what's really going on, while the "traditional reporters" have no idea. Not to say they're clueless, but with the efforts the Chinese government go to block the Internet, the government is getting exactly what they want. Ironically as I write this post, a former classmate of mine who is now living back in China just posted this on Facebook:

"there's really no ethics in news writing in China. I was just doing some initial research about the Chinese farmer's market in Chinese news report, and realize that so many articles are written by coping/pasting a few original report's content and one source, and not even giving credits to those few original sources. SERIOUSLY??"

If the Chinese government don't want the media to know what's going on, they appear to go to any length to hide it. But the title of this article remains true- though the government can do all they want to try and censor and block comments from people, the amount of content posted going against the government daily is too much not to notice. 

Review "Aaron Swartz's Last Gift: Site Launches Whistleblower Safe House" (Common Dreams, (5/17/13)

Here's an article about something I haven't even heard of! (I clicked the link, but it appears to be broken at the moment...or out of business?) Aaron Schwartz's "one last gift to journalists and whistleblowers worldwide and the open-source internet community," appears to be exactly like WikiLeaks in essence. After so much uproar about sites like WikiLeaks, it's not surprising that newsrooms are calling for more security. The anonymity that sites like Deaddrop will allow is essentially a journalist's dream; the ability to write freely, but to avoid persecution and other threats. And not just journalists, but sources too? Obviously it's better for sources not be kept anonymous, but if it means the difference between an important story not being published, this website could help a lot of people!