But it is exactly this notion, this principle of equal access and freedom of speech on the World Wide Web that is in a dangerous state.  A number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner, have developed technologies enabling them to act in their own economic interests by controlling the speed at which different websites and applications load.  They are attempting to act as gatekeepers of information, controlling which websites users have fast and uninterrupted access to.  They are creating a world in which users can easily connect to websites launched by corporations willing to shell out enormous sums of money for fast and uninterrupted service as well as websites within the provider’s affiliation, but may have difficulty accessing websites launched by the provider’s competitors or smaller, private organizations that actually meet their interests, but cannot afford to pay ISPs for faster access.

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality, or Net Neutrality as it is often called, refers to the belief that the Internet should remain open to free speech and equal access for all users and content providers regardless of their level of corporate affiliation. 

“Net Neutrality means no discrimination.  Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination” (SavetheInternet.com).

SavetheInternet.com serves as “an alliance of hundreds of organizations and small businesses, thousands of bloggers, and millions of concerned citizens urging Congress to put Network Neutrality back into law”.  The website is just one of many organizations working to preserve individual freedoms on the Internet and is associated with Free Press, a non-profit organization dedicated to “media reform and Internet policy issues”.  The organization posted a propaganda video in favor of Net Neutrality on the popular website, YouTube, offering a comprehensive summary on the war against corporate control on the Internet.

Another video also offers a summary of the issues and controversies surrounding Net Neutrality.

Debates over freedom of speech and corporate control of media are not unique to the Internet.  Similar concepts over the ideals of free speech and the public forum emerged in the 1800s existing in the early days of the telegraph and the telephone.  Debates over Net Neutrality and corporate control closely mirror the creation of the automatic telephone exchange by Almon Brown Strowger in 1888 which allowed “biased telephone operators [to divert] unsuspecting customers to [its] competitors” (Wikipedia).  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has enacted “non-discrimination” policies over the radio and television industries since the 1930s.  A diverse range of viewpoints have emerged surrounding Net Neutrality and corporate control.  Unlike radio and television, the Internet emerged and operated for many years free of regulation.  Therefore there is no precedent for FCC commissioners to act upon in the history of communications.

The Internet: A Marketplace of Ideas in Danger

Up until recent years, the Internet has operated as a free and open marketplace in which users possess the power within their fingertips to access any information they choose at their demand.  But in recent years, a number of media companies have been utilizing the technological revolution to their economic advantage controlling or blocking competing content.  In a sense, these corporations are violating anti-monopoly laws written by the FCC in the early days of the radio and television in unprecedented ways.  In 2006, COX Cable blocked access to popular online marketplace, Craigslist, as it provided strong competition against their own classified advertising site.  Similarly, a year earlier, Time Warner blocked emails sent to AOL customers regarding a proposal by the company to implement a pay-to-send email programs.  Just this past year, Comcast blocked access to “competing content-sharing applications”. 

Actions such as these can be particularly problematic for users.  Not only are users less informed on important issues, but they are also prevented from choosing another ISP if they do not approve of the practices of their own.  In most areas, users only have access to one, or possibly two, Internet Providers.

Consequences of a World without Net Neutrality

Supporters of Net Neutrality are simply attempting to preserve the basic principles that made the Internet such a unique and powerful medium in the first place.  Placing control in the hands of a few major corporations would yield devastating effects on the ways in which the Internet operates.  Supporters of Net Neutrality fear that “innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted” (Free Press) as a result. 

This may not be far from the truth.  Imagine how enormous technology start-ups such as Google and Facebook, both strong and outspoken supporters of Net Neutrality, would have succeeded in an already controlled marketplace.  The free and open characteristics of the Internet is exactly what allowed these organizations to “launch, grow, and innovate” (Google).  In a world absent of Net Neutrality, success will be impossible for entrepreneurs and technology startups to compete as smaller organizations will be left in an inferior position within a corporate controlled Internet marketplace.

Through an increase in the access and availability of new media technologies as well as the proliferation of the Internet in recent years, Americans have entered into what Henry Jenkins describes as a participatory culture.  Users are not only capable of accessing an endless array of content suiting their needs, but are also able of producing their own content in a number of ways unprecedented in other forms of media.  For example, while the United States is at war with Iraq, a growing number of Americans have become dissatisfied with the biased, corporate controlled content provided by mainstream news broadcasts.  Many have turned to bloggers and “citizen journalists” for news and political updates.  Allowing ISPs to control the flow of content on the Internet will make these tools more expensive and less accessible to the general public, therefore inhibiting the flow of information.

In its current state, there is enormous potential for political viewpoints and opinions to be expressed on the Internet.  Dissatisfied with the “corporately controlled content” they are receiving from the major networks, more and more people are turning to other forms of media for access to news and information on political campaigns.  Statistics reveal that 39% of people watched nightly news broadcasts for information on political campaigns in 2000 compared to only 23% of respondents in 2004.  Bloggers and “citizen journalists” provide like-minded readers with news and viewpoints often underrepresented by mainstream media and through the Internet, viewers access news and information through a diverse range of outlets. 

As demonstrated in recent years, new media and digital technologies play an increasingly more important role within political campaigns and have been greatly successful in engaging the younger demographic.  As held by Common Cause, a non-profit organization that analyzes government organizations and their decisions and aims to keep them in check: “Net Neutrality is the reason this democratic medium has grown exponentially, fueled innovation, and altered how we communicate.  We must make certain that for-profit groups do not destroy the democratic culture of the web”.  In a world without Net Neutrality, the public will not be adequately served.  The Internet will operate similarly to television and radio, under corporate control that will be reflected in biased content as smaller, underrepresented political groups and opinions go unheard. 

Supporters of Net Neutrality feel that creating a corporately controlled environment on the World Wide Web will inhibit innovation.  They fear that there will be no drive for software developers and network engineers to succeed in evolving the Internet to its full potential and “will prevent the expansion and improvement of Internet access for their customers” (Wikipedia).

Opponents of Net Neutrality reason that enabling the Internet to remain free and open could “hinder public safety and homeland security” and identify financial concerns and sources of funding as their rationale for supporting corporate control over the Internet.  A number of these opponents formed an alliance on Hands Off The Internet, a website funded by AT&T.

The Future of the Internet

Many feel that the answer to freedom of opinion and expression lies somewhere between corporate controls and Net Neutrality.  As stated by Vint Cerf of Internet Protocol, “The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services.  A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive” (Wikipedia).  There are number of supporters of a free and open Internet who feel that corporate control is necessary in order to ensure a particular level of quality of service.  Many think of Net Neutrality “as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications”(Wikipedia) as described by Columbia University Law School Professor Tim Wu.

Currently, Comcast and popular file sharing website BitTorrent are forming a coalition that may affect future developments in Net Neutrality.  The two websites collided in 2007 after Comcast was accused of slowing down file sharing traffic.  It is difficult to predict the future of the Internet, but I believe it will become increasing important for Internet Service Providers and users to work together in order for the Internet to continue to operate as a thriving marketplace of ideas. 

For More Information and To Get Involved

SaveTheInternet.com

Free Press

Wikipedia

Common Cause

The Free Expression Policy Project

Google

The 2004 Presidential Campaign was a time of experimentation in which political candidates utilized new media to their advantage.  “Consider, for example, John Kerry’s announcement of his running mate.  Kerry made the announcement first via e-mail to supporters who had registered through his Web site; the Kerry campaign used the announcement to expand its list of potential supporters for electronic mailings in the fall, and they used the buzz around the e-mail announcement to increase viewership of the televised announcement” (Jenkins 217).

Congress approved the Telecommunications Act in 1996 easing laws placed by the Federal Communications Commission in the early days of radio and television prohibiting and regulating cross-media ownership and control.  The result was a less informed public.  When it came to the political landscape, the trend was “an alienation of Americans from everything Washington…and the feeling of large numbers of Americans that they are disrespected by political and media elites” (TheHill.com).

In just twenty years, news coverage of political candidates in a typical broadcast has dropped from 43 seconds in 1968 to just 9 seconds in 1988.  Mainstream media outlets present their audience with biased content that is corporate controlled often with an economic interest in mind.  As the country is at war in Iraq, the major networks are careful not to cover controversial issues that threaten losing their viewers.  For example, prior to the 2004 election, ABC barred affiliates from airing a feature on “Nightline” that it felt “focused attention solely on people who have died in the war in order to push public opinion toward the United States getting out of Iraq” (The Free Expression Policy Project) and risked alienating sectors of their audience.

Dissatisfied with the “corporately controlled content” they are receiving from the major networks, more and more people are turning to other forms of media for access to news and information on political campaigns.  Statistics reveal that 39% of people watched nightly news broadcasts for information on political campaigns in 2000 compared to only 23% of respondents in 2004.

The Internet offers users access to an endless array of diverse media content.  Bloggers and citizen journalists provide like-minded readers with news and viewpoints often underrepresented by mainstream media.  Through the Internet, viewers access news and information through a diverse range of outlets including the BBC, which has a long history of presenting unbiased content as well as other “indie media” outlets including Free Speech TV and “Democracy Now!” (The Free Expression Policy Project).

The Internet also provides users with the opportunity to participate in political commentary.  As Jenkins discusses in “Photoshop for Democracy”, parodies surrounding political candidates express widespread opinions on the Web .  For example, About.com offers a gallery of the 100 most popular political cartoons.  Websites such as YouTube.com allow users to upload video content, expressing their personal opinions on political candidates, therefore actively participating in media production and political news.

As more and more voters, particularly of the younger generation, have turned to the Internet, political candidates are faced with the new challenge of engaging this younger demographic.  In order to succeed in a digital culture, political candidates will need to utilize new media to their advantage as a strategy in gaining voter support.

Consider Senator Barack Obama’s current popularity with the younger generation.  According to the Spartan Internet Political Performance (SIPP) Index, “measuring the support and how well each candidate is connecting with individuals across the Internet”, Obama received a 37% rating in comparison with his lead Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, receiving only a 20% rating.

Obama is employing grassroots political strategies such as these.  The senator has created a profile for his campaign on the popular college website, Facebook.com, and has gained enormous support.  Obama currently has over 700,000 supporters on the site. 

I believe that new media and digital technologies will play an increasingly more important role within political campaigns.  Evidence has revealed that communicating with voters via the Web is successful in gaining voter support.  How capable these candidates are at utilizing these technologies to their advantage may not determine who wins the 2008 Presidential Election this upcoming November, but will most certainly be a factor and will continue to play an even more crucial role in the future.

For More Information

The Free Expression Policy Project  

TheHill.com

Following its release in February of 2004 by Harvard University student Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook surged in popularity throughout 2005. 

There are 64 million registered Facebook users worldwide making the site the 6^th most trafficked website on the Internet. 

In its early days, users could connect only with others belonging to a college or university network.  Facebook sought to distinguish itself from rival MySpace by centering on strengthening relationships with those you knew in your past.  In Zuckerberg’s words to The New York Times: “We’re not thinking about ourselves as a community – we’re not trying to build a community – we’re not trying to make new connections”.

Much of its enormous popularity can be attributed to its user-friendly format.  Facebook makes it simple for users to upload photos (14 million photos are uploaded daily!) and import their blogs from websites such as Livejournal and Blogger.  In the past year, Facebook even added an application allowing users to post free classified advertisements modeling Craigslist.

Despite the fact that Facebook, as of yet, has not faced its demise, the future of the social networking phenomenon is dim.  Throughout its short history, Facebook has been plagued by a number of controversies. 

Following its release in 2004, a lawsuit was filed against Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, by the founders of ConnectU who allege that Zuckerberg stole the source code to create the social networking site. 

Many feel that Zuckerberg’s lack of experience may lead to the end of Facebook.  Afterall, how could Zuckerberg, a 23 year old CEO who developed this project in his dorm room, possibly bear the pressures of running a massive technology startup?

He has already made a number of what many consider to be devastating business and financial mistakes such as rejecting an offer of to sell Facebook to Viacom for $750 million.  Facebook’s planned expenditure of $200 million for 2008 may also lead to a number of financial problems for the startup as they plan to increase their spending and double their number of employees, despite seeing a decrease in profits.

The website is also seeing a decline in its growth and popularity.  In July, the website reported an average of 150,000 new users registering on a daily basis.  A report released last month by Comscore, an Internet marketing research company, found that “the number of people who visit

Facebook has been leveling off over the past few months in the U.S.

With Facebook granting free access to users for their services, many have begun to wonder how the social networking website will manage to earn any money.  In comes another crucial business mistake made by Zuckerberg: Project Beacon, which permitted users to be targeted with socially responsible ads based on information.  Registered users of Facebook were outraged feeling that their privacy had been violated.  Not only did Facebook manage to alienate itself from its loyal user base, but the plan to allow advertisers space on the site seemingly has backfired as advertisers are not achieving impressive results.

This is not the first time users have voiced their complaints over this issue.  Controversy arose in the fall of 2006 when Facebook opened its doors to anyone with Internet, demolishing the unique feature that once distinguished itself from its rival MySpace.

So, what is Facebook to do?  Over the course of the next five years, Zuckerberg plans to continue developing new applications to be accessible to users.  But will this work?  Only time will tell, but reports have shown that users are sick of all the “Application Spam” they are receiving and are at risk of alienating their users even more.

 (d.)

For More Information

Wikipedia

Facebook, Inc. News – The New York Times

The Drama 2.0 Show

PCMech

loose wire blog

It is evident in its enormous growth in popularity that reality television may have a better place in today’s culture of convergence.  Consider the fact that producers of reality television series are now capable in today’s technological revolution of developing their programs across an ever-growing number of media platforms, therefore expanding the loyalty of their audience members.   

As Henry Jenkins discusses within Convergence Culture, American Idol is a prime example of how television networks have utilized aspects of new media culture to manipulate their audiences.  American Idol puts the power in the hands of the audience by partnering up with AT&T to allow viewers to phone in and text message their votes for contestants.  Immediately following the program, viewers can log onto ITunes and download their favorite contestants’ performances and producers even put together an annual American Idol Concert Tour featuring the final twelve making this series a true transmedia franchise.  As if exposure to reality programming on prime-time television is not enough, FOX also has devoted an entire channel to the genre.

As access to the Internet has become commonplace in American homes, the number of possibilities to explore your favorite programs are endless.  Think of the fans described by Henry Jenkins in “Spoiling Survivor” who participated in fan communities and went to enormous lengths to reveal the conclusion of the next week’s program before it was aired. 

The format of reality television series leaves viewers questioning what will happen next.  These programs open the doorway to discussion, whether it be with your family and friends, or within a convergence culture, someone half-way across the globe with the power of the World Wide Web.  American Idol fans will log fan communities attempting to determine who will be eliminated in the upcoming episode.   Unique fan communities like these have sprung up for a variety of other reality television programs.

Similarly, entire websites are devoted to reality television for viewers in case they have missed an episode or just want to simply further immerse themselves in the program.  Check out: Reality TV Website.com and Reality TV World.

(c.)

With the emergence of Blackberry’s and PDA’s, one no longer needs to feel tied down to their home computer or laptop.  These devices allow you to direct your email account directly to your cell phone. Today mobile phone carriers offer a number of web packages even on cell phones so you can log on to your favorite websites pretty much anywhere you go. 

And don’t worry, I’m sure that there is a PDA that fits exactly your needs.  Some, such as the Samsung BlackJack run on Microsoft Windows so users can upload Word documents and Excel spreadsheets onto their screens.  Others, such as the LG Voyager are equipped with GPS navigation systems, therefore eliminating yet another expensive gadget from your vehicle. 

And Blackberry’s are no longer huge mobile phones used by only those in the business world.  The sleek, improved design of the Blackberry Pearl is not only small and stylish but functional for almost anyone. 

Many of us carry IPods and mp3 players around with us.  These devices have changed the face of the music industry within American popular culture forever allowing users to choose not only songs and entire albums they wish to purchase and download, but also entire television shows, videos, and other forms of media content.  Verizon’s V-Cast music package allows users to do exactly this, but on their cell phone, therefore eliminating the need to carry both an mp3 player and a mobile phone.  

For many, Blackberry’s and PDAs come with a sense of relief as one gadget can do all of these things.   So with all this media flowing through one single black box, the PDA, isn’t this a prime example of what Henry Jenkins refers to as the “Black Box Fallacy” in motion?

(b.)

Not only does this site permit movie-goers to search the database for virtually any film they can think of, even those that are often considered obscure or films that have not even opened in theaters yet, granting them access to a great wealth of information including synopsis, cast list, ratings, trailers, local showtimes, and a number of other interesting facts, but www.imdb.com provides users with recommendations for other movies that may be of interest to them as well as link them to Amazon.com to purchase their selections.  As though this is not enough, this site also provides users with primetime television schedules broadcast on a variety of networks as well as links to news stories regarding current events in the entertainment industry right on its homepage.

www.imdb.com is particularly effective in targeting its core audience, the movie-goers of America, as it provides them with quick and easy access to almost anything they want to know associated with films and the entertainment industry. I like www.imdb.com particularly because I always quickly locate exactly what I am looking for and I also find it comfortable to navigate.  The website, itself, is easy to read as well as visually appealing. 

There are no large or distracting banner advertisements.  Instead, the website’s sponsors are listed and linked to on the homepage.  For example, there are a number of references upcoming awards shows.  Links to different categories are straightforward as well.  These are located within the column on the left-hand side of the page as well as across the top heading of the webpage.

http://www.imdb.com/

(a.)