wirelessing the world

1. CWNs are community wireless networks that allow for open. free accessible, nonproproetary systems to be built using the buying power and economies of scale withing neighborhoods, towns, and cities. CWNs are a way for resident to build rescources in their communities, save money, and free themselves from profit-driven business models. This bridges the digital divide by eliminating one problem facing users: end users having to pay directly for access.



2. Barriers: The battles fought over control in wireless mirror previous technological battles between big business and the greater good. As with the telephone, many wireless providors are made up of powerful, profit focused companies that hold have a niche in the wireless market, These companies belong to a trade group called WiMax. This forum is composed of industry leaders whose interest seems to be maximizing profit. this forum would like to "eleiminate all competing standards before the public has any idea of what the alternatives maight be." this system creates a standards-compliance structure that puts smaller, CWN's at a disadvantage. Bid business is hard to overcome and our current system does not help.

3. The result of fewer companies controlling the market share comes from corporate consolidation and the early buying of technology before anyone else has a chance. controls over wireless technilogies are quickly being consolidated by large corporations whose main interest in bolstering profit. These companies have the money and power to gain control ovder any new develoopment before any small-scale firm. This is a very common and smart business move. If companies don;t consolidate, there will be too many different people involved. Though not very personable and it may not result in cheaper wireless tactics, the networks are easier to control this way.

money as debt

It would seem natural, that money is created by the State, and in fact most Central Banks seem to be owned by the State and run by it. I say "seem" because, to all intents and purposes, it is an apparency. They are almost constituting a "fourth power" in addition to the three legally constituted and well known "traditional" powers, legislative, executive and judicial.
When the State needs money, it does not order the Central Bank to credit some money to the treasury’s account. The State has only two ways to obtain money. One is taxation of it's citizens, the other is borrowing from the banks.
When the Central Bank issues money, this is done in the form of a loan. The State has to borrow this money, and must promise to repay it, with interest. The same is true of course for a private person who needs money borrowing from a commercial bank. The bank is happy to loan, as long as you can show you have security, and promise to repay with interest. The banks are essentially creating money. Banknotes, when they are printed, are considered the property of the Central Bank. They are not given to the State to spend, but are brought into circulation against a corresponding debt. Anyone wanting some of those notes to spend, has to "buy" them by giving up some of their credit. And in any case, most of the money in circulation (more than 90% according to the video) is not banknotes but "credit". When you go to your bank asking for money, the loan you get is created right there in your bank. The "money" consists of figures on your bank account, and it can be spent writing checks, giving an order to transfer or drawing the cash. Banks only have to have a small percentage of their loaned-out money actually available. The rest can be paid out just by moving some figures from one account to another. Money is created just by inserting some numbers into a computer.

2. Why create money as debt? Why not create money that circulates permanently and does not have to be perpetually re-borrowed in interest in order to exist?

An economy needs money so that goods and services can be exchanged. If there is too little money goods will remain unsold, prices will fall and we call this deflation. If the scarcity of money becomes serious, eventually the economy will go into recession, that is, production comes to a halt, people lose their jobs, misery starts to reign. So it is very important that the amount of money in circulation is at all times sufficient for people to buy the goods and services that are being offered. If on the other hand, too much money is available, inflation, which is a general rise in prices that diminishes the "buying power" of money, is the result. Inflation is as undesirable as deflation, and it would be best if money were stable in it's buying power.
At this time, government has only indirect means, to assure such stability, because it is the banks who can determine how much credit to create.
Also with the government unable to create it’s own money, the only way to make sure there is enough money to buy the goods that are on offer, is to continue taking loans! Of course that means to continue to pay interest! That is why governments never have enough money, and why we have to be taxed to the limit of endurance to pay for debt service, in addition to all other government expenditures

1. Do broadcasters use radio and television to quickly and effectively respond to the local communities needs and interests? Give examples to support your answer.

I do not think that broadcasters use radio and television to effectively respond to needs and interests. In my opinion, they are more concerned about ratings and making money. Large media corporations seem to desire to acquire as many stations as possible to expand their influence and business profits as much as possible. I think they are more interested in deleivering their own policies to the public instead of reflecting the people they claim to represent. It is a rare find to see a station that does not have to answer to the conglomerate that owns them. Look at the Clear Channel communications hearing discussed on pgs. 23-25. This company previously owned 1200 stations and were staunch Bush supporters. They benefitted greatly from the policies of Michael Powell. When you read the speech by TC Calvert on pg. 25, it is plain that Clear Communication did not have the public's interests in mind.

2. Are there certain kinds of local programming (Public Media Values) that should be available, but are not being provided by broadcasters? what could some examples of these be?

I think it is the job of local rpogramming to inform its citizens of what is happening in their area as soon as possible, much like Clear communication failed to do in the San Antonio example above. They need to become a positive, informative source of information. We should be able to use local news to warn us of dangers, crimes, etc... that are happening where we live. I think the emerging technology of "smart radios" as defined on page 33 would be a great aid. Opening up airwaves so that medis is not so limited and implementing fair licensing techiniques for this new technology sounds like a great solution.

3. What could the Federal Communication Commission do to promote localism in broadcasting? Explain three of these examples of public-service-oriented projects that are already in process across the US.

UTOPIA- If they raise the money, Utah would deploy to homes and business fiber-optic cables capable of of delivering data at speeds one hundred times faster than the current cables. The focus here is faster, more relaible access.

Public Interest Wireless Providers- utilising public airwaves to provide high speed access via a shared unlicensed spectrum. They offer low cost connections to rural areas and offers opportunities for universal broadband services. I loke this because I live oue in a rural area that currently does not offer wireless. It is so hard for us to get information right now.

LPFM (Low-powered FM Radio)- Constructed at a rapid clip, providing a unique community medium. these have been some of the greates success stories. I have worked for one of these station in high school and admire them as well. these station are totaslly dependant on listeners and local businesses and offer the best local support in my experience. The station I worked for was WAY FM in Grand Rapids Michigan. They are able to currently be totally commercial free.

extras:What Stanford professor and lawyer that we have discussed before is mentioned in this essay?
What organization is he the founder of?
What is the "spectrum" that the authors refer to?

Campaign Debate and the struggle for a free press

This clip from the debate shows the what I think is the negative influence of media on elections. I noticed when watching the clip that neither cadidate seemed to really touch on the issues. They were more interested in mudslinging their opponent for their audience. The purpose of a debate is so that we can see a candidate in action, defending their policy with no media bias. The article from the future of media states that many media mediums reflect the interests of the people who run them. I wholeheartedly agree with his statements. I can see this especially in television news and in newspapers. It is hard to stay completely objective without being influenced by those above yet I do not think this is fair. A professional journalist should not have to color the truth because it does not serve the interest of the media establishment in which they are employed. The presidental candidated have a huge opportunity to have their say without any influence from a biased media whatsoever yet I felt that neither candidate took this opportunity. I would like to see less finger-pointing and be told straight from the source what each candidate want to do without a media bias coming from the journalists themselves and the large conglomerates they work for.

Trials of the Public amateur

When looking in the context of the time that this took place, I understand why this happened. I also think that the government was marginally justified in what they did. I do not agree with the reactionary measure that were taken but Kurtz and Ferrell did break the law, no matter what context or what reason they had. Our country was almost in shambles after 9/11 and the whole situation was completely overblown by the FBI. I cannot imagine being treated like that by the people we pay to protect us, especially in the aftermath of losing your wife unexpectedly. They should have seen the obvious instead of freaking out. I believe in artistic expression and the publics right to knowledge as much as the next person but we cannot cross the boundaries laid out for us by the government. We all need to be held to the same standards otherwise, the law becomes useless to us. This was a very complicated situation.

Quiz Over the Cult of the Amateur

Quiz comments

1984: Web 2.0 Style vs. the shopaholic

My mom does a lot of online shopping and at some point over the last year she created a profile on google checkout. a month ago, she went to make a purchase at one of her favorite stores that uses google checkout and found that both her credit and debit cards she has used online had been automatically saved to her profile. She also uses my google and if you sign in, all your google checkout information is accessible. This would not be a problem if it automatically logged out when you close the browser but it doesn't. We also found out that this information is accessible to anyone that uses the computer if you forget to logout of mygoogle by accident. She has periodically used my computer to shop so I unknowingly have her credit card numbers. i went to amazon.com and ordered a book for class and when I went to checkout, her numbers were there on display. This is scary to know that all of this information can be so easily accessed. I do not really know how this service works but my parents freaked out. Anyone could have gotten a hold of this information. I do not trust online shopping and never do it unless forced. Can you imagine the damage that could have been done if this had fallen into the wrong hands? This definitely makes me think it's worth the gas money to just drive to the mall.

I agree with Keen about the dangers of using the Internet. I never put anything online that I do not to be publicly known about myself.