Extra Credit How it Works

It seems that the way that voice over ip technology works is in a way that makes the very problem I had with it necessary. When your voice is recorded to the computer it must first be converted from analog (basically physical sound waves) into digital (computer representations of those sound waves) and then put into packets of digital information that is sent over the network. This creates a necessary delay in the process. Other parts that factor into this are that when information is downloaded off the internet it is in packets that sometimes spike and dip in size. With voice information the size stays the same, that means that the computer can predict exactly how much bandwith is going to be needed at any given time. Meaning a dedicated bit of this bandwith can be set aside making the process faster. If the technology can manage the conversion process and sending process instantaneously then that delay I hate may be fixed and who knows, this may be a big technology yet.

Voice Over IP

I really don't see Voice Over IP having that big of an effect on the way that we use telephone technology. I've used some of the free software before to just check out how things work and frankly I found it annoying and somewhat hard to use. There was a slight delay that made it so that each one of us was constantly starting to talk and then waiting as we realized the other one had already started and then tried to start again. Besides that aspect of things there is the growing trend of abandoning land lines in favor of cell phones. So if a user doesn't think that a regular phone is necessary they are very unlikely to find a phone that needs an internet connection and a computer an improvement. The free long distance doesn't even factor in as a major selling point since most cell phone plans now offer the same thing. So while it is an interesting technology I just don't see it being that useful or necessary.

Access

The relationship between the internet and accessibility standards seems to be that cyberspace as a public forum is getting more and more regulated. No longer is cyberspace an area where the people can do whatever they want it is becoming another forum where government regulation is becoming more and more necessary. With regulations on how certain sites can function, how people access the internet, and how the internet is made available, the internet is no longer a place where completely free ideas can be exchanged. While we don't need to panic and start looking for "big brother" in everything we do, we do need to be aware of regulations on the way we surf the internet and how the internet is provided to us. It's not completely free.

Political Activity

It is becoming increasingly obvious that internet technology has had a major influence on political activity. Blogs and bloggers had a huge influence on the way information was spread in the last election and have proved a major force in getting word about rallies and other activities out. Electronic voting has also come into play and people are able to quickly do polls and get the information out to other people involved in the campaign. I read a newsweek article on the 2004 election and there was hardly a page that didn't contain mention of one of the campaign staff sending out memos or using internet technology from his palm pilot. Information spreads so quickly now and that only leads to greater control over what the officials release and how they approach public image. The internet lets everyone know of any mistakes or succeses instantly.

Free Space

Public Space in cyberspace means to me that the internet is one gigantic "public sphere" in which everyone can freely access information and also create and share their own ideals and information. What is troubling as that although many people think the internet is like this, it isn't. As noted in the reading, users in places like Saudi Arabia will find it very difficult to use the internet freely. Their actions are tracked and observed, and they are unable to obtain certain information. The notion of freedom of information and free speach is absent here. Even in the United States there are certain areas where your actions are tracked and the information you may try to access is not free. Pay sites, cybersitters, and other forms of internet restriction make it so certain people are at a disadvantage in this area. Free public sphere? Maybe not.

Gated Online Community

This article really opened my eyes as to how the "free" internet that promises a voice for everyone is starting to become more and more exclusive. The author mentions a number of different "friendster-esque" sites that have begun limiting their members in a desire to increase profits. The idea here is that free sites based on ads (like friendster) take a long time to start making a profit. These sites ask their members to pay for more specialized content and options and hope that the users will feel this is worth their time and money. If this works they certainly will begin to make a profit, however, if they can't get enough members their just looking at going off the net. Interesting stuff but scary at the same time. With more and more of the internet becoming a "pay to play" environment, it just means that the poor masses aren't going to have the same options as the rich elite. Creating a cast system on the "free internet" creates a serious problem to the new voice of the world.

URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=829191271&Fmt=3&clientId=8991&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Jennifer Saranow. (2005, April 29). Gated Online Community; New Wave of Exclusive Sites Tout A-List Networking; A Revolt Against Friendster. Wall Street Journal (Europe), p. A.7. Retrieved 2005, May 5th

Community

I found the first reading to be quite interesting. It was nice to see sites like friendster and thefacebook put to some practical use. I just wonder how many respectable "old school" business men are willing to do something like this. It would be quite interesting to find out the ratios. The 2nd reading was kind of disturbing. It seemed to almost promote an internet revolution and claimed to be raising voices otherwise unheard. To a point that is correct but the internet has natrual biases that tend to get overlooked. For one only more well off people have access too the internet and have the knowledge to use it to their advantage. That eliminates a whole sector of voices right off. I think the internet is a good tool for democracy but I think praising it as the next super power may be a bit premature.

Blogs and Community

I do think that blogs facilitate communities in the sense that they allow people of like minds to come together in one place. If someone creates a blog dedicated to a socialist agenda in politics then people who vastly disagree with that point of view are unlikely to visit (except maybe to flame but thats another story). In the same vein people who enjoy growing exotic plants will migrate towards a blog that is dedicated to that interest. In this way the blogs bring people from all over the world (who share the same goals or interests) together. The problem begins when others who take offense to this agenda swarm to the blog. They can pollute the blog with harsh language and diatribes (flaming) and ruin the experience for those who used to enjoy it. Another problem is that not everyone has access to these blogs and so some people are excluded immediately. Its a real boom for those who can use it yet the in place bias of the internet stops some at the get go. Another problem is the lack of source credibility. Most blog owners are regular people with no expert training in the subject. This can lead to problems when they make unsubstantiated claims or voice opinions that others take seriously and thus, spread around the internet or real world. This flow of inaccurate information is a detrement to discussion and is a very real problem with blog communities.