So our group just handed in our white paper!
We learned a lot about the ESPN360 iniative, as well as other trends in providing video content on the web…and we can’t forget about little buzz word called “net neutrality.”
I hope everyone enjoyed our presentation! Enjoy your break and we’ll see everyone next semester!
Click here to read an article that was featured in Wired on The Golden Compass, a Potteresque trilogy.
This article details what an expensive undertaking this movie has been.
This article made me think of the Machima presentation, I wonder if the increased use of CG and machima could help…I am sure they will have it down by the second part.
My co-owner and I are the only girls in our football league and we are 9-2!
Go team Chocolate and Vanilla!
So the fantasy football season is almost over…but hoops is in full swing and the NHL is only a quarter through their season!
Sounds like a prime time to play fantasy sports!
Of course make sure you go through the World Wide Leader for all your info!
Now that the semester is almost over…I might catch up on some movies!
Any recommendations?
No Country for Old Men looks really good!
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, gobble gobble!
Here is one of my all time favorite videos from Youtube (my all time favorite site : D) -
What did you expect from someone who loves this site!
Thought I would lighten things up a bit with asking a good friend of mine to do the talking. Just in case his accent is too thick, I just want to stress a few points (and I am having trouble uploading the vid!).
“It it clear that advertising will remain the bedrock for financing most search on the web” (Halavais, 2007) ***PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A DRAFT, DRAFT, DRAFT NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR CITATION! Thanks! : D
I have a slight problem that every time I do a google search I have to look at LEAST five links down before I come accross a site that is NOT trying to sell me something. What is even more unsettling is that companies can buy a position on google…thus deciding what information is most important through $$$. I have a problem with this hierarchy that classifies information by a position.
This relates directly to the digital divide…the rich are just getting richer and calling all the shots. While diverse information is now available as the Internet supports a long tail, how can one find this info if they do not know how to perform a search? It seems elementary web skills, but I worked at a non-profit computer lab and we taught a course on just searching the web properly for “trusted sources.” Although Wikipedia has become more established, people still take it on face value. How does anyone find the TRUTH in a sea of websites promoting products or a political doctrine?
We also taught a course to the Silver Services, as you can tell from the name, they were an elderly group of women who wanted to use e-mail to stay in touch with their grand-kids (the “digital natives” as refered to by Halavais). As the Internet caters to niche audiences, do niche audiences really have access?
Do you think the digital divide exists and to what extent…has it gotten better or worse?
Here is a link to an article I found on Internet inequalities entitled, Social Implications of the Internet. I did a search through google scholar and as much as I was tempted I didn’t opt for the first article…I even went to the second page! But I must note this article would have cost me $20 if I wasn’t able to retrieve it from the Quinnipiac Library. It just interesting to think even when one has access to a computer, there are are still limitations. In this case financial, which falls in line with the consequences of a digital divide. This article also covers the how political participation is affected by the digital divide. A lot of these limitations go hand in hand. Can individuals search accurate information about the candidates in order to be informed or will they stumble unknowingly onto a site that has a hidden agenda?
One question this article poses is whether or not the internet has given low income men and women opportunity, or is it perpetuating the rich get richer cycle as mentioned in the Halavais piece?
A little extra experiment…
Thanks to Meg for really putting a lot of work into this!
Outline
1. Mission Statement:
How can ESPN attract a larger audience to its ESPN360 division? How can they use net neutrality in their favor expand 360’s audience while still bringing in a profit? This is important for a media company to accomplish in the competitive world of sports. Especially as the popularity of using the Internet as a main device in people’s lives continues increase. In this article we will be discussing the requirements needed to satisfy the customer by delivering rich coverage services and the avenues ESPN Inc. can take to make this a reality.
2. General Overview
a. What is ESPN360?
Discuss and define the ESPN360 with the following questions: What does it offer customers? How does it run? What are the components need to make sure it runs effectively? How much does it cost? What goes into making this production? Using the following articles:
i. Chmielewski, D. and G. Johnson (2007). “Broadcasting; NBA contract takes digital leap forward; The league’s new $7.4-billion deal with Walt Disney and Time Warner includes online and mobile rights.” In Los Angeles Times, Business Desk; Part C; Pg.
ii. Schneider, C. (2007). “WPRI Report: The benefit of cable competition in Wisconsin.” In Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc.,. (pp.1-34). Retrieved in October 2007 from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume%2020/Vol20No4/Vol20no4.pdf.
b. What is Net Neutrality?
Discuss and define what net neutrality is by showing how is works. In this section we will be using graphs and illustrations and we will be referencing the following articles:
i. Peha, J. (2006) “The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality and the Quest for a Balanced Policy” Prepared for the 34th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Carnegie Mellon University (pp.1-23) http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha/ balanced_net_neutrality_policy.pdf“
ii. Wu, Tim, “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863“
iii. Jordan, S. “A Layered Network Approach to Net Neutrality”. International Journal of Communication, Vol 1, p. 1-34, (2007) Available at IJOC: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/168“
iv. Prüfera, J. and Jahn E. “Dark Clouds over the Internet?”. Telecommunications Policy, Volume 31, Issue 3-4, p. 144-154, (2007) available at Portal: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1238210“
v. Sidak, Gregory. (2007). “What Is The Network Neutrality Debate Really About” International Journal of Communication http://ijoc.org/ojs/index/php/ijoc/article/viewfile/177/95
vi. Gilroy, Angela. (2006). “Net Neutrality: Background And Issues.” Library of Congress, Congressional.
vii. (2007). “The Broadband Debate: A User’s Guide” Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law..
c. Requirements
Discuss the requirements need for this ESPN 360 Application to run properly and cost effectively on both sides:
i. Consumer Demands and Needs
ii. Company’s Demands and Needs
d. Available Services Options
Discuss the different service options ESPN has to produce ESPN360. Use of graphs and illustrations will be implemented.
i. Membership (like Insider)
ii. Cable Providers Subscription
iii. Internet Only use Pay as you Go
e. Conclusion
i. Thesis Statement
ii. ESPN must use Net Neutrality in it’s Favor
iii. Recommended Plan of Action
The Next Killer App…Miss Williams’s Video Blog…jk!
So here is video blog…enjoy! I had to split them up by article so it would upload…or it looks like I am completely obsessed with myself! : D
Each clip is a little under 5 minutes long, so you can pick and choose what you want to hear me yap about!
Stay Tuned for all 4 installments…youtube is taking forever to process these!
Rheingold, H. (2002). Shibuya epiphany (pp. 1-28). Smart mobs. New York: Perseus.
Here is an article I found on looking at how texting has “bolstered” different forms of love relationships in the Phillipines.
Czerwinski, M., Gage, D.W., Gemmell, J., Marshall, C., Pérez-Quiñonesis, M., Skeels, et al (2006). Digital memories in an era of ubiquitous computing and abundant storage. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 45-50. (Love the first frame here!)
Optional: Gemmell, J., Bell, G., & Lueder, R. (2006). MyLifeBits: a personal database for everything. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 89-95.
Optional: Kangas, E. & Kinnunen, T. (2005). Applying user-centered design to mobile application development. Communications of the ACM, 48(7), 55-59. So what is the next killer app? And will it have to do with cell phones, the web or neither?
“AYO Technology…I’m tired of using technology…why dont you come here and…”
This new song by J Timberlake and 50…what do you make of it interms of technology maintaining or “bolstering” relationships?
And I kind of like it! Here’s out Ant Bib…enjoy!
Fitz’s Picks
Peha, J. (2006) “The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality and the Quest for a Balanced Policy” Prepared for the 34th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Carnegie Mellon University (pp.1-23) http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~peha/ balanced_net_neutrality_policy.pdf“
A fundamental issue in the network neutrality debate is the extent to which network operators should be allowed to discriminate among Internet packet streams to selectively block, adjust quality of service, or adjust prices. This paper first reviews technology now available for traffic discrimination. It then shows how network operators can use this technology in ways that would make the Internet less valuable to Internet users, and why a network operator would have financial incentive to do this if and only if it has sufficient market power. A particular concern is that network operators could use discrimination to extract oligopoly rents from upstream markets that are highly competitive. This paper also shows how network operators can use the very same technology to discriminate in ways that benefit Internet users, as well as the network operator. Thus, network neutrality supporters are right to fear unlimited discrimination in some cases, while network neutrality opponents are right to fear a policy that imposes strict limits on discrimination. From this, we argue that the network neutrality debate should be refocused on the search for a balanced policy, which is a policy that limits the more harmful discriminatory practices in markets where there is insufficient competition, with little interference to beneficial discrimination or innovation. We apply this balanced policy in a few controversial scenarios as examples. There has been too little attention on the possibility of a nuanced balanced policy, in part because the network neutrality debate is focusing on the wrong issues. This paper argues that the debate should shift towards the complex details of differentiating harmful discrimination from beneficial discrimination, and away from high- level secondary questions like whether discrimination is inherently just, who ought to pay for certain Internet services, how important general design principles are, what abstract rights and freedoms consumers and carriers deserve, or whether network operators can give their affiliates special treatment. Reality is more complex than these questions would imply, and none of them will serve as a basis for a sufficiently specific and effective policy.”
Wu, Tim, “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 2, p. 141, 2003 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=388863“ Communications regulators over the next decade will spend increasing time on conflicts between the private interests of broadband providers and the public’s interest in a competitive innovation environment centered on the Internet. As the policy questions this conflict raises are basic to communications policy, they are likely to reappear in many different forms. So far, the first major appearance has come in the ‘‘open access’’ (or ‘‘multiple access’’) debate, over the desirability of allowing vertical integration between Internet Service Providers and cable operators. Proponents of open access see it as a structural remedy to guard against an erosion of the ‘‘neutrality’’ of the network as between competing content and applications. Critics, meanwhile, have taken open-access regulation as unnecessary and likely to slow the pace of broadband deployment”
Jordan, S. “A Layered Network Approach to Net Neutrality”. International Journal of Communication, Vol 1, p. 1-34, (2007) Available at IJOC: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/168“ Net neutrality was the most contentious communications policy issue considered by Congress during 2005-2006. The issue is the result of a fragmented communications policy unable to deal with technology convergence. In this paper, we develop a net neutrality policy based on the layered structure of the Internet that gracefully accommodates convergence. Our framework distinguishes between discrimination in high barrier-to-entry network infrastructure and in low barrier-to- entry applications. The policy prohibits use of Internet infrastructure to produce an uneven playing field in Internet applications. In this manner, the policy restricts an Internet service provider’s ability to discriminate in a manner that extracts oligopoly rents, while simultaneously ensuring that ISPs can use desirable forms of network management. We illustrate how this net neutrality policy can draw upon current communications law through draft statute language. We believe this approach is well grounded in both technology and policy, and that it illustrates a middle ground that may even be somewhat agreeable to the opposing forces on this issue.”
Prüfera, J. and Jahn E. “Dark Clouds over the Internet?”. Telecommunications Policy, Volume 31, Issue 3-4, p. 144-154, (2007) available at Portal: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1238210“ Currently, the Internet is characterized by excess capacity which benefits consumers and producers of Internet-based services alike. High quality and declining prices of interconnection are the basis for many e-commerce, software and equipment businesses. However, tough competition in the Internet backbone market driving these developments could ruin network operators and threaten other markets, too. We will pursue the idea of the Internet backbone market’s decline based on standard economic theory. We will present several scenarios and discuss potential market-based and policy-based remedies. We find that due to a phenomenon we call capacity paradox the industry’s future development is overshadowed by “dark clouds”.”
Ant Beezy in the Hizzy with Candizy…Forseezaayyy
(2007). “The Broadband Debate: A User’s Guide” Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law.. This article discusses in detail what the issues are with net neutrality and the concerns of the user as a whole. Why is net neutrality an issue? This gives the reader a better understanding of what the core issues are in this debate.
Sidak, Gregory. (2007). “What Is The Network Neutrality Debate Really About” International Journal of Communication http://ijoc.org/ojs/index/php/ijoc/article/viewfile/177/95 The author outlines what he believes to be the issues with network neutrality. “The real debate is not about censorship of particular messages, but rather content and applications that are bandwidth-intensive.” In our whitepaper we plan on discussing what network neutrality is and possibly the positive and negative aspects of it.
Laxon, William. (2005). “The End Of Net Neutrality.” http://www.law.duke.edu “In 2005, the FCC changed the competitive landscape of the high-speed Internet access industry by classifying both DSL and cable modem service as “information services.” While many hail this move as a victory for competition and free markets, others fear the ruling could jeopardize the future of the Internet. This iBrief examines the potential end of “net neutrality” and concludes that new federal regulations are unnecessary because antitrust laws and a competitive marketplace will provide consumers with sufficient protection.”
Gilroy, Angela. (2006). “Net Neutrality: Background And Issues.” Library of Congress, Congressional. “As Congressional policymakers continue to debate telecommunications reform, a major point of contention is the question of whether action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. The move to place restrictions on the owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet, to ensure equal access and non- discriminatory treatment, is referred to as “net neutrality.” There is no single accepted definition of “net neutrality.” However, most agree that any such definition should include the general principles that owners of the networks that compose and provide access to the Internet should not control how consumers lawfully use that network; and should not be able to discriminate against content provider access to that network. Concern over whether it is necessary to take steps to ensure access to the Internet for content, services, and applications providers, as well as consumers, and if so, what these should be, is a major focus in the debate over telecommunications reform.”
Masterpiece Literature Review with J Williams
Schneider, C. (2007). “WPRI Report: The benefit of cable competition in Wisconsin.” In Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc.,. (pp.1-34). Retrieved in October 2007 from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume%2020/Vol20No4/Vol20no4.pdf. Cable markets that allow different cable providers to compete due to the regulation of local government, prevent the “monopolistic” nature of cable service. Competition is good for consumers as it provides consumers with more programming choices and could lead to a drop in cost. This article also details how Wisconsin has become the “new battle ground” for companies to looking offer new broadband services among existing contracts with cable providers. Interestedly, there was controversy in October of 2006, when most of the viewers could not see a match up between the Wisconsin Beavers and the Northwestern Wildcats, because the program was exclusive to ESPN360. At the time ESPN360 to not have agreements with Charter Communications and Time Warner, the dominant carriers in the area. This article addresses this specific situation and why competition will help broadband services.
McTaggart, C. (2006). “Was the Internet ever Neutral?” Prepared for the 34th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy George Mason University School of Law Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A., (pp.1- 331). Retrieved in October 2007 from http://web.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2006/593/mctaggart-tprc06rev.pdf. ESPN360 has evoked a backlash from sports fans, who believe that the service should be free, and by charging this broadband service undermines the basic fundamentals of the Internet. However, was the internet ever neutral? This articles argues the internet was not, and there was a time when it was not even open for the public to use. This argument will be supported by examples to demonstrate that the internet is currently far from neutral. Furthermore, this article will support a competitive market as it will foster new offerings and the evolution of broadband services such as music downloads and streaming live video.
Chmielewski, D. and G. Johnson (2007). “Broadcasting; NBA contract takes digital leap forward; The league’s new $7.4-billion deal with Walt Disney and Time Warner includes online and mobile rights.” In Los Angeles Times, Business Desk; Part C; Pg. 1. In the competitive world of sports, sports entertainment coverage is extremely lucrative and thus extremely competitive. If a company does not move fast on a product, another company is there to make a profit off of the idea. In June 2007, ESPN signed an unprecedented deal with the NBA, that would allow ESPN more access to rights and coverage then any of the network’s deals with other major sports. This access would also entail mobile and broadband services, making this one of the first deals of it’s kind. This article details the demographic of the sports fan and why it is imperative to reach these audiences through new media platforms. If ESPN is able to capitalize on this new deal by successfully offering broadband content, it could mean a huge profit return for ESPN and help to establish itself at the forefront of cutting edge sports coverage in the new media arena.
Anderson, C. (2004). “The long tail.” Wired, 12(10). Retrieved September, 2007. “The Long Tail,” served as a springboard for this paper. C. Anderson’s article details how niche entertainment has been able to be offered, and even compete with “popular” entertainment because online services has obscure findings available. Consumers now have more options outside the top 20%, in terms of the entertainment they would like to digest. This article also makes an argument to make online offerings free to the public, such as music downloads. As the offering that Internet users would probably most likely want to be free, music downloads will be an interesting to make a comparison with streaming video.
