Technology annd Social interaction in the classroom

For the topic of the communication infrastructure, I focused on technology in the classroom. From advancing technology from the computer we are able to do more in the classroom today. Specifically, I focused on three different topics during my presentation: distance learning, internet applications, and technology geared classes. In addition to the advancements of the computer, the internet has given us many more resources to enhance the learning process. Such websites are WebCT, Course Compass, Facebook, and so many more. I am a TA and I used Facebook to communicate with my students about assignments and class activities. The internet has also made communicating much easier through instant messaging and social networking sites.
Distance Learning is more convenient now than ever. Through instant messaging and streaming video online classes are virtually comparable to being in the classroom. I focused on instant messaging mainly because 85% of adolescents use it. It is also a direct line from the professor to the student. Communication is not an issue because of this. E-mail is always an alternative to that as well. Internet application have allowed teachers and students to retrieve information online, look up grades, and find other important school related material. I used Elearning as my example here because it allows the student to look up notes, instant message to other people in the class, and find other resources the professor posted that we might need for the class. Finally, I discussed how there are more programs to help grade school students get familiar with technology. This adds stress to the students because the internet has opened more resources but it is for the better.
I concluded that students are more prepared for their next step in life from the technology training they receive in school. During my discussion, Twitter was brought up as an internet tool for Communication 325. It wasn’t the most preferred resource for class work but it is breaking barriers with technology in the classroom. The online math homework website was discussed as being an obstacle to overcome. Along with the talk about Twitter I said it was hard for me to get used to it, and I still don’t like it that much. Lastly, it was brought up that someone’s younger brother was using computer notebooks in middle school. This tied into my conclusion since children of all ages are learning about computers and their applications at younger ages. The preparation is needed for the technology laden world they will be moving onto later on in life.

Case Study: Net Neutrality in Canada

Last thursday I presented a case study that had to do with net neutrality in Canada. Net neutrality in todays world is a big issue, that the government is starting to notice. Net neutrality in Canada allows people to view any websites at any bandwidth equally. The students in the class payed great attention because it is an issue that is spreading throughout the world that is very imporntant, because it can be the end of a free internet.

When I started my presentation I asked the question who uses the internet? And the answer is everybody that has access to the internet uses it. Now why use the internet? People in these days use it for mostly everything: shopping, watch television, play games, pay bills, watch the new, research? In 1991 the internet was commercial used for the first time by Tim Berners-Lee and he invented the internet so people can use it freely. Now imagine that the network providers that you pay every month for good banwidth control what websites you can view on how much you pay. For example, if you want your computer to browse faster than usual, you will have to pay an extra fee; also if you want to research something on google you have to pay another in orther to research. That is why the government in Canada is taking control and putting net neutraility in act. They enacted Bill-C552 (net neutrality).It allows people with internet access browse the web free not paying for what you what to see and how fast you want your computer to browse. Also, the government made it illegal for network providers to do bandwidth throttling. Network providers try to control internet traffic and make people internet very slow so that they will use their service. So who controls the network? Well I would have to say both the network providers and the government. The government is controlling the network because they are letting people in Canada surf the web freely, not having to pay on what sites they want to view and browse. But in the other hand the network providers are controlling the netwoprk because they have control on what can content can be viewed, just no fee to do, which is what they are trying to do. This can be a big crisis in the world if network provider can have full control of the internet. It can be the end of the internet, which is not a good thing, because in todays world the internet is what society rely on to do everything. There is a website that supports net neutrality it would be a good thing that people go on and support it so that the internet can be used freely. Also a video explaining Canada's internet.




http://www.savetheinternet.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfHjP0jRf4s

Net Neutrality and the Internet Freedom Act of 2009

This past Thursday I presented a case study to the class on Net Neutrality and the Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Net Neutrality is the principle that “if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.” Right now the FCC is for Net Neutrality. A few years ago the FCC caught Comcast, the 2^nd largest US cable television and Internet communications provider, throttling customer’s Internet connection. The Internet Freedom Act, proposed by Senator John McCain, states that the Internet should be “free from government control and regulation.” If that act passes, Internet providers such as Comcast could start doing whatever they wanted to. This chart could very well be our future:

Whenever I presented this in class, I was not surprised at how unenthusiastic the class was. There are a lot of possible factors: 1) it was 8:00AM 2) they just heard about net neutrality 5 minutes ago 3) I’m not the best speaker. I can keep making excuses but I honestly think that our generation does not care (or at least non-computer science majors). This generation is spoiled rotten. You all expect everything to work and for everything to be handed to you, especially the Internet. Like Andrew mentioned in his blog post, our society relies heavily on the Internet for daily use. You use it for just about everything. In this era of media convergence, most of us get our news and weather online. We watch television shows online on Hulu. We watch movies online through Netflix. We can call people with our computers using Skype. We listen to music online through Pandora. The Internet has basically replaced the radio, the telephone, the television, and the newspaper. That’s a good thing, right? Not if you’re one of the big cable television and Internet communications providers. They noticed that people are now using the Internet for these things, and they’re not making money from it. They’re losing money. Why pay for cable when you can watch your favorite TV shows online? The only way they can possibly make any money from this is by charging extra for what you use the Internet for. High-bandwidth services (like Skype, Hulu, Netflix, etc.) will not be included with your access to the Internet. Instead, you have to pay extra to access these features. That would be totally legal if the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 passes. Without any regulation, companies can do what they please, and they’ll do whatever makes them money. Instead of innovating technologies, they want to provide us the technology that’s been around for years and charge extra for it. Without any other competition, if one or two companies start charging extra, others will follow, leaving you with one or no other alternatives. In response to the question “Who controls or monitors the media?” I would have to say that the people control the media. YOU have the power to decide whether or not the act passes. If you go to http://www.savetheinternet.com you can sign the online petition. Whether you are for against net neutrality, go to the website and find out how you can contact your local representative. Tell them how you feel about net neutrality.

Here’s a video on net neutrality, in case you haven’t gotten the concept down:

Case Study: American Idol

Last Thursday, I presented a case study to the class on American Idol, one of the most watched TV programs in America. Today, almost everyone knows about American Idol. Many students in class were surprised about my presentation. I was happy that most students took my presentation seriously and some students gave their personal opinions during discussion time.

I started my presentation about why TV is interactive and gave a clear definition of interactive TV which is the various ways which allow viewers to interact with TV content as they view it. Then I discussed in detail about the history and operation of American Idol. I also discussed about how American Idol’s interactivity allows audience and viewer participation in the form of dialing toll free numbers or text messaging. I also discussed that American Idol also promotes its idol merchandise such as single song releases, albums, posters, DVDs, books, t-shirts, temporary tattoos, key chains, and a CD-Rom computer game, during TV shows which led to the development of new media markets. In response to the topic question “How do older media form influence new media markets?” My answer would be older media form such as TV allows shows such as American Idol to gain worldwide attention and attraction of the public and media. American Idol uses this opportunity to promote various products which are purchased by the public, contributing to an increasing media market. There were two other case studies presented on the same day which discusses about the TV digital converter box and a free online TV website “Hulu” which also caught my attention.

Hulu as a New Media Market

Last week in class I presented a case study to the class over the online streaming video provider Hulu. Old media is able to inform new media markets through convergence. The television media market has converged with internet technology to create a new media market where television programming can be viewed on sites like Hulu for free. Providers of the standard home subscription based cable plan are forced to compete in this new market despite numerous limitations. The only real advantage they have is the ability to offer premium content and programming which a free service like Hulu cannot provide.

I gave a brief introduction on what media convergence is and how it has affected the television media market in the past. I then discussed some of the emerging trends that have lead television into the online television media market. These reasons included the growth of online videos being watched, the bad economy, and the effects of DVR commercial skipping on revenue obtained by advertisers. I then discussed how the Hulu site addresses these concerns. After that I discussed how cable television providers are attempting to compete with the Hulu service through their own new online television content service.

For the class discussion I first tried to get an idea of how many classmates actually prefer to watch television online. I was surprised to find that very few actually prefer this method. Most students either watched television content live or used DVR equipment to record shows for later viewing. On top of this nobody seemed to believe that a service like Hulu could ever replace cable television. Many believed that premium content and sports channels would prevent Hulu from ever being able to replace cable television. It would seem that the new media market of online television has a lot of growing left to do before it can fully replace the old market of cable television.

The Digital Converter

On November 05, 2009 I presented a case study on the digital converter box. In June 2009, the United States Government along with the FCC and NTIA, switched from analog to digital television. Although told for many months, many people lost connection to their televisions. Their antennas no longer received digital transmissions. The digital converter box was the only object that could receive and process the new digital airwaves. The process from analog to digital shows how old media affects new media.

At the beginning of my presentation, I gave a brief overview of the history of television. The first broadcast was in 1925 while the first regular broadcast in the United States was in 1936. I next gave defined The Freeze which lasted from 1948 to 1952 and the Golden Age which lasted from the late ‘40s to the early ‘50s.

Next, I moved to the digital transformation, more importantly the beginning of the digital converter box. The federal government spent over $2.5 billion by handing out a maximum of two coupons per household. The NTIA and FCC combined forces to tackle this large feat, but now the NTIA no longer has anything to do with the converter boxes. The coupon was for $40 off of a new converter box. New converter boxes range in price from $40-$90. I found a quote which I had been missing reading for the past two weeks, due to the fact that the article I was looking at mainly talked about how much money it would cost for the coupon. This quote, “No widespread disruption of free, over-the-air television broadcasts, “(Cable) is meant to describe the transfer from analog to digital television. The transfer was not exactly smooth or disruption free. Many people had problems with the antennas, as many did not have the converter yet. The only people that saw no change were the ones with cable or satellite. If you had cable or satellite you did not have to buy a converter box.

Another point that I made was that only four channels out of seventeen were set aside for police, fire, and rescue organizations. The remaining thirteen were auctioned off. Verizon Wireless and AT&T spent a combine $16 billion in hopes of improving their own broadband services.

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a few questions.

Did the digital converter box offer better reception and better quality?
Was there an increase in channels?
What types of conspiracies started due to the federal government giving no real reason why they wanted everyone to go digital?

"How Do Film Industries Influence Women's Perception of Body Image"

In my case study, "How Do Film Industries Influence Women's Perception of Body Image", we discussed that the film industry has become one of the most powerful influences on women and their perception of sefl-image. Over time, from the Victorian Era of the 1800s to the present, media has begun to set an unrealistic standard for the "ideal" body of women.
Body image is a term that relates to an individual's internal perception, evaluation, and thoughts about one's person appearance. With the ever growing film industry women are constantly finding themselves conforming to the molds that are illustrated in the Hollywood sphere. Media has formed a habit of only casting one type of woman for their leading roles, neglecting to inform the audience of the digital or surgical alterations, airbrushing, or other editing effects. Women are increasingly objectified to unnatural expectations od beauty that are put forward by models and actresses who do not reflect the average appearance of women in society.
The "ideal" body of women has changed profoundly, but it seems to be a continuous vicious cycle to follow. During the Victorian Era of the 1800s, women's ideal body type was plump and full-figured; women accentuated their hips and buttocks with restricting corsets. At the start of the 19th century, slenderness was more fashionable. The 1920s gave way to the slim flapper who bound their curves to achieve a washboard look. Energy and viltality became central and body fat was a sign of self-indulgence. In the 1930s the film industry had begun to produce the first movie stars and it was referred to as the "age of glamour". A tall slender figure was the most sought after. Marilyn Monroe set the standard for the 1950s and even into the 1960s. Acceptance of the voluptuous woman, and the need to build back the curves that defined a women was imperative. The 1960s saw a split between the supermodels and the movie stars. The models were leaning towards one end of the body mass index with the "thin is in" look while the actresses were still illustrating the classical womanly figure. From the 1980s to the present, being ultra thin is the look women are trying to obtain. More recently, the thin has become thinner, and the ability of most women to achieve this look is near impossible.
Mass culture and the media serve to project the body ideal and turn gentle concern into obsession. The media has given us very rigid, uniform beauty ideals. TV, magazines, and movies mean we see beautiful people more often then our friends and family; the ideal becomes more familiar to us and thus appears more normal and attainable. The movie industries reinforce the importance of a thin body as a measure of a women's worth.