http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/29/my-bright-idea-ha-joon-chang
Did the washing machine change the world more than the Internet?
Although the Internet enables us to discover new information it is not a human right. personally i feel that it is a necessity and therefore those who can afford it should have it.
The washing machine liberated workers and enabled humans to have easier lives where they have more spare time.
The Internet has made the world a more Democratic home for its inhabitants as citizens are now able to access information. However, communist countries limit this.
Internet has it limitations:
less secure to do online banking
dangerous for children
Internet security is advised (more cost)
speeds of sites and providers vary
no net neutrality
Tuesday 29 March 2011
It has been said that media representations often reflect the social and political concerns of the age in which they are created. Discuss
Media representations help shape world stereotypes, for ethnic minorities, in particular. Digital media for example represents citizens within democracy but does not always accurately represent groups equally. In modern society black youths are said to be dangerous, Islamic followers are subject to prejudice and the white British males are portrayed to be dominant within society.
Firstly, media representations reflect society’s social views such as representations of minorities, this leads to either negative or positive discrimination within democracies of those and in turn leads to political representations of those groups being distorted. This can be supported by televised news channels that claim to be neutral e.g. BBC. Whilst on the other hand, channels which are privately owned such as SKY, owned by Rupert Murdoch, are free to broadcast as they wish...
Also, modern technology such as web 2.0, wifi and smart phones which enable ‘on the go’ media means that positive or negative representations are more widely available. Concerns regarding media are constantly changing and therefore evolve as time passes adapting to the consumers and producers tastes...
Male gaze and scopophilia is another factor which follows social and political stereotypes...
In addition, gender trouble adds to the...
In terms of the underground music industry artists such as Joe Black, Benny banks and Hunt struggle to breakthrough into mainstreams music. Although this is due to the genre of music it also heavily relies on their race and negative stereotypes produced by society. As on the other hand, an artist from London name K Koke, the lead member of USG, has been signed by Jay Z, under Roc Nation. And it is for this reason that whilst media provides the advertisement of producer’s music, it also leads to stereotypes being produced.
It can be assumed that the stereotypes produced are dependent on the consumer and that obviously these representations will vary from fans to those who consider themselves of high class and important figures such as politicians. Despite political strategies within the UK such as ‘hug a hoody’ and ‘no hoodies in malls/shopping centres’...
In terms of politics social divides are likely to occur through the constant prejudice and discrimination faced by ethnic minorities. In turn this is likely to have a negative economic affect on society as less jobe are likely to be produced. For instance in USA affirmative action and positive discrimintation means that tghose less fortunate from ethnic minorities are allocated jobs in communities. alhtouthis may decrease morale wihint society at least governments are attempting to reach equality for all and equal opportunities- unlike British media, with the negative stereotypes produced.
Firstly, media representations reflect society’s social views such as representations of minorities, this leads to either negative or positive discrimination within democracies of those and in turn leads to political representations of those groups being distorted. This can be supported by televised news channels that claim to be neutral e.g. BBC. Whilst on the other hand, channels which are privately owned such as SKY, owned by Rupert Murdoch, are free to broadcast as they wish...
Also, modern technology such as web 2.0, wifi and smart phones which enable ‘on the go’ media means that positive or negative representations are more widely available. Concerns regarding media are constantly changing and therefore evolve as time passes adapting to the consumers and producers tastes...
Male gaze and scopophilia is another factor which follows social and political stereotypes...
In addition, gender trouble adds to the...
In terms of the underground music industry artists such as Joe Black, Benny banks and Hunt struggle to breakthrough into mainstreams music. Although this is due to the genre of music it also heavily relies on their race and negative stereotypes produced by society. As on the other hand, an artist from London name K Koke, the lead member of USG, has been signed by Jay Z, under Roc Nation. And it is for this reason that whilst media provides the advertisement of producer’s music, it also leads to stereotypes being produced.
It can be assumed that the stereotypes produced are dependent on the consumer and that obviously these representations will vary from fans to those who consider themselves of high class and important figures such as politicians. Despite political strategies within the UK such as ‘hug a hoody’ and ‘no hoodies in malls/shopping centres’...
In terms of politics social divides are likely to occur through the constant prejudice and discrimination faced by ethnic minorities. In turn this is likely to have a negative economic affect on society as less jobe are likely to be produced. For instance in USA affirmative action and positive discrimintation means that tghose less fortunate from ethnic minorities are allocated jobs in communities. alhtouthis may decrease morale wihint society at least governments are attempting to reach equality for all and equal opportunities- unlike British media, with the negative stereotypes produced.
Thursday 17 March 2011
Digital media, in many ways, changed how we consumer media products
Who do you think benefits most- audiences or producers?
To introduce, digital media has enabled a wider audience and so forces the industrial producers such as the BBC, SKY and ITV to become more interactive. This has encouraged user generated content, increased the amount of citizen journalists and increased the advances in technology, which in turn has made it cheaper to purchase technology for the citizens to enable them to become producers.
Firstly, “media globalisation is tightly interweaven with world economy and market forces” and so as more products are available to consumers, the consumers become producers too. Supported by this, the theory of Marxism suggests that the media industry is only money motivated, therefore with such technology available to consumers and producers, consumers are more likely to become producers. For example, www.youtube.com enables producers to post up their productions as long as they meet youtube’s privacy and copyright criteria.
Similarly, programmes such as ‘you’ve been framed’ encourage citizens to ‘send in’ their media via text, email or DVD, and in turn the citizens receive £250. In effect the cash payment acts as an incentive for the public, but in reality, programmes such as these rely on citizens and their media to broadcast. Similarly, the news channels act like this where they rely on citizen journalists to produce media about factors such as the weather conditions across the world, traffic situations within major cities and also the citizen’s personal opinions on the discussed topics within the news. Therefore this benefits the audience and encourages a healthy democracy.
Also, with reference to the ‘rodney king’ recording found on many sharing websites, this encourages citizen journalism. From this it can be concluded that “capitalist production develops technology combining together various processes into social life”, whilst encouraging consuemrs to become producers. In turn, this creates demands for induvidual packages such as sport, science, history. And so, th emocrtic UK, although catyering for all, does not “resist the tyranny of the specialists”. Despite catering for all, new digital media also benefits products as more profit is then easily comissioned.
In addition, the advances in technology mean that there is more demand, and so more consumers purchase the products of the induvidual companies such as Nokia, Samsung and Blackberry. Obviously this benefits the producersbut it ensures that the audience remain passive despite using the services provided. However, it can also be argues that the producers have their technology for it to be use with web 2.0 to access a wider audience. In turn, these products suggest that “the americanisation of world culture so often commented on and often deplored might be better described as the discovery of world culture”. In this case, this this statement is true as at the moment there are over 5 hundred million facebook users who can access it on their ‘smartphones’. This not onyl benefits the audience but enables the producers to widen theri horizons to attract more consumers.
On the other hand, channels such as sky, bbc and itv have ‘send in’ sections specifially designed for consumers. This relies on citizen journalists to produce media about factors such as the weather conditions across the world, traffic situations within major cities and also the citizen’s personal opinions on the discussed topics within the news. This means that web 2.0 fully flourishes as it iis used daily by most of the world. As technology advances it suggests that in terms of cultural imperialism “western nations dominate the media around the world whcih in turn effects the world”. For example, Libya and Egypt relied on facebook and twitter to spread democracyt and rebel against dictators such as Gaddaffi. Western culture no “longer imposes thrid world cultures...destroying cultures”. Therefore, enabling consumers to become producers, increasing interactivity and spreading world news and culture.
Who do you think benefits most- audiences or producers?
To introduce, digital media has enabled a wider audience and so forces the industrial producers such as the BBC, SKY and ITV to become more interactive. This has encouraged user generated content, increased the amount of citizen journalists and increased the advances in technology, which in turn has made it cheaper to purchase technology for the citizens to enable them to become producers.
Firstly, “media globalisation is tightly interweaven with world economy and market forces” and so as more products are available to consumers, the consumers become producers too. Supported by this, the theory of Marxism suggests that the media industry is only money motivated, therefore with such technology available to consumers and producers, consumers are more likely to become producers. For example, www.youtube.com enables producers to post up their productions as long as they meet youtube’s privacy and copyright criteria.
Similarly, programmes such as ‘you’ve been framed’ encourage citizens to ‘send in’ their media via text, email or DVD, and in turn the citizens receive £250. In effect the cash payment acts as an incentive for the public, but in reality, programmes such as these rely on citizens and their media to broadcast. Similarly, the news channels act like this where they rely on citizen journalists to produce media about factors such as the weather conditions across the world, traffic situations within major cities and also the citizen’s personal opinions on the discussed topics within the news. Therefore this benefits the audience and encourages a healthy democracy.
Also, with reference to the ‘rodney king’ recording found on many sharing websites, this encourages citizen journalism. From this it can be concluded that “capitalist production develops technology combining together various processes into social life”, whilst encouraging consuemrs to become producers. In turn, this creates demands for induvidual packages such as sport, science, history. And so, th emocrtic UK, although catyering for all, does not “resist the tyranny of the specialists”. Despite catering for all, new digital media also benefits products as more profit is then easily comissioned.
In addition, the advances in technology mean that there is more demand, and so more consumers purchase the products of the induvidual companies such as Nokia, Samsung and Blackberry. Obviously this benefits the producersbut it ensures that the audience remain passive despite using the services provided. However, it can also be argues that the producers have their technology for it to be use with web 2.0 to access a wider audience. In turn, these products suggest that “the americanisation of world culture so often commented on and often deplored might be better described as the discovery of world culture”. In this case, this this statement is true as at the moment there are over 5 hundred million facebook users who can access it on their ‘smartphones’. This not onyl benefits the audience but enables the producers to widen theri horizons to attract more consumers.
On the other hand, channels such as sky, bbc and itv have ‘send in’ sections specifially designed for consumers. This relies on citizen journalists to produce media about factors such as the weather conditions across the world, traffic situations within major cities and also the citizen’s personal opinions on the discussed topics within the news. This means that web 2.0 fully flourishes as it iis used daily by most of the world. As technology advances it suggests that in terms of cultural imperialism “western nations dominate the media around the world whcih in turn effects the world”. For example, Libya and Egypt relied on facebook and twitter to spread democracyt and rebel against dictators such as Gaddaffi. Western culture no “longer imposes thrid world cultures...destroying cultures”. Therefore, enabling consumers to become producers, increasing interactivity and spreading world news and culture.
Tuesday 15 March 2011
WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY?
Where all people should recieve the same braodband connection, at the same speed, and have the right to view the same material as one and other at the same speed.
IS THE INTERNET NEUTRAL?
At the moment the internet is not neutral as there are many types of boradband connections using web 2.0. In turn, this has lead to certain consumers viewing various content types at different speeds.
SHOULD THE INTERNET BE NEUTRAL?
In short, yes. It will make the UK more democratic and in turn enable all consumers of web 2.0 to view the content they want at the speed for which they pay for.
Where all people should recieve the same braodband connection, at the same speed, and have the right to view the same material as one and other at the same speed.
IS THE INTERNET NEUTRAL?
At the moment the internet is not neutral as there are many types of boradband connections using web 2.0. In turn, this has lead to certain consumers viewing various content types at different speeds.
SHOULD THE INTERNET BE NEUTRAL?
In short, yes. It will make the UK more democratic and in turn enable all consumers of web 2.0 to view the content they want at the speed for which they pay for.
Dems To Re-Offer Amendments to Net Neutrality Resolution
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/465262-Dems_To_Re_Offer_Amendments_to_Net_Neutrality_Resolution.php
It looks like the Democrats will once again try to amend the Republican's resolution of disapproval invalidating the FCC's network neutrality rules.
The resolution passed in the Communications Subcommittee last week. Although amendments are not germane to such resolutions, Democrats offered up a half dozen to illustrate the important Internet issues they thought the resolution would prevent the FCC from dealing with, including Web site blocking, emergency communications, fraud, child porn, and privacy.
For example, one amendment stipulates that the FCC regs would go into effect as planned "if the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, determines that the failure of such rule to take effect would result in the loss of 1000 or more jobs." Dems argue the resolution would be a job-killer.
According to a list of the amendments for Tuesday's full House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, the same amendments will be offered once again. If past is prologue, Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will rule that each is not germane following their introduction, after which the resolution will be voted on.
Next stop will be the House floor, though it will almost certainly be stopped in the Democratically controlled Senate.
It looks like the Democrats will once again try to amend the Republican's resolution of disapproval invalidating the FCC's network neutrality rules.
The resolution passed in the Communications Subcommittee last week. Although amendments are not germane to such resolutions, Democrats offered up a half dozen to illustrate the important Internet issues they thought the resolution would prevent the FCC from dealing with, including Web site blocking, emergency communications, fraud, child porn, and privacy.
For example, one amendment stipulates that the FCC regs would go into effect as planned "if the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, determines that the failure of such rule to take effect would result in the loss of 1000 or more jobs." Dems argue the resolution would be a job-killer.
According to a list of the amendments for Tuesday's full House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, the same amendments will be offered once again. If past is prologue, Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will rule that each is not germane following their introduction, after which the resolution will be voted on.
Next stop will be the House floor, though it will almost certainly be stopped in the Democratically controlled Senate.
ISPs to outline stance on net neutrality
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/09/isps-outline-stance-net-neutrality
BT, Sky and Virgin Media to explain 'two-speed internet' policies at summit on net neutrality
BT, Sky and Virgin Media – along with the rest of Britain's leading internet service providers – will next week outline an industry-wide "code of practice" on how they explain controversial "two-speed internet" policies to customers.
The group will make their announcement at a ministerial summit on net neutrality chaired by culture minister Ed Vaizey – which will also be attended by Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the web and a strong supporter of net neutrality – on 16 March.
The ISPs plan to publish how they manage internet traffic – such as video viewing, music streaming and movie downloading – in comparison to their rivals. That will make clear if they throttle popular services such as the BBC's iPlayer to maintain capacity for all customers on their network.
However, the companies – whose ranks also include the leading mobile operators – will not commit to a minimum service standard, even though some phone companies believe that "there should be a basic commitment to let people browse everything on the internet".
The agreement follows a wide-ranging debate on "net neutrality" – whether ISPs should be allowed to charge content companies such as the BBC or Google for faster delivery to the nation's homes.
BT, TalkTalk and others argue that ISPs should be free to strike deals for more efficient delivery.
Under the plans, described as a "voluntary code of conduct" by people at the meeting, ISPs will be compelled to publish a "scorecard" of how they speed up and slow down traffic and for which companies. But internet providers will still be allowed to throttle public access to video and peer-to-peer services if they wish.
The Broadband Stakeholders Group, which has been facilitating meetings with ISPs on traffic management since late last year, will publish a statement shortly after the meeting. ISPs hope the move will head off an enforced code of practice by the communications regulator Ofcom.
Most ISPs manage traffic at peak times to enable faster speeds for their customers. The BBC has been in fights with ISPs over the amount of bandwidth used to stream its iPlayer service.
In November, the corporation said it would introduce a "traffic light system" on the iPlayer, so that viewers could say whether their connection was being slowed down by providers.
Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, publicly intervened in the net neutrality debate in January, saying an internet "fast lane" could undermine the corporation's responsibility to deliver programming to the nation's homes.
"As the web becomes a vehicle for the transport of richer and richer content, the question of whether all content from all providers is treated equally by the networks becomes ever sharper," he said.
BT, Sky and Virgin Media to explain 'two-speed internet' policies at summit on net neutrality
BT, Sky and Virgin Media – along with the rest of Britain's leading internet service providers – will next week outline an industry-wide "code of practice" on how they explain controversial "two-speed internet" policies to customers.
The group will make their announcement at a ministerial summit on net neutrality chaired by culture minister Ed Vaizey – which will also be attended by Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the web and a strong supporter of net neutrality – on 16 March.
The ISPs plan to publish how they manage internet traffic – such as video viewing, music streaming and movie downloading – in comparison to their rivals. That will make clear if they throttle popular services such as the BBC's iPlayer to maintain capacity for all customers on their network.
However, the companies – whose ranks also include the leading mobile operators – will not commit to a minimum service standard, even though some phone companies believe that "there should be a basic commitment to let people browse everything on the internet".
The agreement follows a wide-ranging debate on "net neutrality" – whether ISPs should be allowed to charge content companies such as the BBC or Google for faster delivery to the nation's homes.
BT, TalkTalk and others argue that ISPs should be free to strike deals for more efficient delivery.
Under the plans, described as a "voluntary code of conduct" by people at the meeting, ISPs will be compelled to publish a "scorecard" of how they speed up and slow down traffic and for which companies. But internet providers will still be allowed to throttle public access to video and peer-to-peer services if they wish.
The Broadband Stakeholders Group, which has been facilitating meetings with ISPs on traffic management since late last year, will publish a statement shortly after the meeting. ISPs hope the move will head off an enforced code of practice by the communications regulator Ofcom.
Most ISPs manage traffic at peak times to enable faster speeds for their customers. The BBC has been in fights with ISPs over the amount of bandwidth used to stream its iPlayer service.
In November, the corporation said it would introduce a "traffic light system" on the iPlayer, so that viewers could say whether their connection was being slowed down by providers.
Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, publicly intervened in the net neutrality debate in January, saying an internet "fast lane" could undermine the corporation's responsibility to deliver programming to the nation's homes.
"As the web becomes a vehicle for the transport of richer and richer content, the question of whether all content from all providers is treated equally by the networks becomes ever sharper," he said.
Net neutrality should be law, says media tycoon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/sxsw/8382431/Net-neutrality-should-be-law-says-media-tycoon.html
Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, which owns a host of internet companies, including Ask.com, Vimeo and The Daily Beast, has called for net neutrality to be enshrined in US law.
Speaking at South By Southwest in Austin, Texas, Diller said: “We need an unambiguous rule - a law - that nobody will step between the publisher and the consumer, full stop.”
Diller said that without net neutrality, which guarantees that all internet traffic will be treated equally, regardless of its type, a small number of companies would be able to hold consumers “to ransom”.
He said that internet access should be a utility, like electricity, and that service providers demands to be allowed to charge different amounts for different types of traffic was like “asking the toaster to pay for the electricity”.
Diller, whose impressive career has included stints as CEO of ABC, Paramount Pictures and Fox, has been involved in the internet since 2000 said: “The internet is a miracle. It shouldn’t have happened [...] You push a button and you publish to the world.”
He said attempts to limit net neutrality were an attack on that freedom.
Earlier in the day by Al Franken, the Democrat senator for Minnesota, made his own call for net neutrality. He warned the SXSW audience: “Every policy maker in Washington is hearing much more from the anti-net neutrality side than the side without lobbyists. But everyone has more to fear from these big corporations that from us.”
He added: “There is nothing more motivated than a corporation that thinks it is leaving money on the table.”
Diller echoed those views, saying that he had asked a cable company executive why he was against net neutrality, despite the inherent fairness of treating all traffic equally. The executive, who Diller did not name, told him: “Fairness has nothing to do with it. We get all the money right now. We don’t want anyone else to get the money and that’s why we’re against net neutrality.”
In Britain, the Government has refused to back net neutrality but Ed Vaizey, the Communications Minister, told the Telegraph last year that his priority was “an open internet”. He said: “Should the internet develop in a way that was detrimental to consumer interests we would seek to intervene.”
Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, which owns a host of internet companies, including Ask.com, Vimeo and The Daily Beast, has called for net neutrality to be enshrined in US law.
Speaking at South By Southwest in Austin, Texas, Diller said: “We need an unambiguous rule - a law - that nobody will step between the publisher and the consumer, full stop.”
Diller said that without net neutrality, which guarantees that all internet traffic will be treated equally, regardless of its type, a small number of companies would be able to hold consumers “to ransom”.
He said that internet access should be a utility, like electricity, and that service providers demands to be allowed to charge different amounts for different types of traffic was like “asking the toaster to pay for the electricity”.
Diller, whose impressive career has included stints as CEO of ABC, Paramount Pictures and Fox, has been involved in the internet since 2000 said: “The internet is a miracle. It shouldn’t have happened [...] You push a button and you publish to the world.”
He said attempts to limit net neutrality were an attack on that freedom.
Earlier in the day by Al Franken, the Democrat senator for Minnesota, made his own call for net neutrality. He warned the SXSW audience: “Every policy maker in Washington is hearing much more from the anti-net neutrality side than the side without lobbyists. But everyone has more to fear from these big corporations that from us.”
He added: “There is nothing more motivated than a corporation that thinks it is leaving money on the table.”
Diller echoed those views, saying that he had asked a cable company executive why he was against net neutrality, despite the inherent fairness of treating all traffic equally. The executive, who Diller did not name, told him: “Fairness has nothing to do with it. We get all the money right now. We don’t want anyone else to get the money and that’s why we’re against net neutrality.”
In Britain, the Government has refused to back net neutrality but Ed Vaizey, the Communications Minister, told the Telegraph last year that his priority was “an open internet”. He said: “Should the internet develop in a way that was detrimental to consumer interests we would seek to intervene.”
Net Neutrality
Net neeutrality is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
Thursday 3 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)