Media Technology and Society: Introduction

The more I read the more I am struck by the fact that:

verbal, written, electrical, smoke, by hand (sign language);

in chalk, in sand, on paper, carved in stone;

in that we are a people of communication. It truly doesn’t matter what the ‘technology’, we are driven to find a means of communication. The key those is the ‘Rosetta stone’ to guide us through these communications.

Whether someone was born and raised in a technical environment or a more rural/agrarian the communication exists. It is the means that changes.

Elements that have been covered in the three classes experienced by this cohort are evident in these communications. Defining the digital difference and necessity could be a challenge. When to leap forward with innovation and when to keep it simple. Where will innovative techniques only compound an issue and confuse the receiver?

Social Aspects of New Media Technologies

Comments on:

"Social Aspects of New Media Technologies,"

From Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 1994.

One interesting issue I think wasn't covered enough for topic was the findings mentioned briefly early on about adopters of the technology and their demographics - specifically wealthy or more disposable income.

From cell phones and faxes to cable TV and VCRs, status has also driven the technology slightly ahead of mass adoption.

Once affordable, or perceived as ‘with in reach’, a certain level of pre-critical mass could be presumed to be achieved. The status symbol of the new technology.

As long as it is affordable, convenient, and offers some level of moderate usefulness, critical mass isn’t far behind most of these technologies. But if too expensive, inconvenient, or no practical purpose can be derived, it will most likely be short lived.

How the Internet killed the phone business

Comments on:

"How the Internet killed the phone business,"

The Economist, 17 September 2005 (eReserve)

As a VoIP user for more than two years as sole home phone and users of several previous iterations of internet-based voice options, let me simply say that VoIP is here to stay.

The quality is close but not perfect, the networks (DSL and cable modem) are more often the issue.

I could ramble on the technology and the networks that make it less than ideal but I’m sure others will comment on that. From inconsistent network services to QoS elements.

My ‘AHA’ was the mild to minor inclusion of mobiles and the G3 network. A great deal of text has been slathered on the web with creative ways to leverage VoIP and a mobile connection to extend ‘free domestic calling’ on a cell to become ‘free international calling via a free domestic call interconnected with your VoIP elements.’

The examples of most of these are such Rube Goldberg contraptions to be well beyond the patience of the average cell user or even VoIP.

But not today. As Bob Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/) of NerdTV and PBS fame explains in his April 7, 2005, column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050407.html), the ways the cell, IP, and VoIP will bring about the demise for ‘hard-wired life’ and I believe are far more likely that the Economist’s view that G3 networks are endangered.

Even as IP extends further beyond the smell of roasted coffee hot-spots and the Howard Johnson through a mesh of urban coverage, cell phones and their networks have a lot of life left. Far more than their wired parent companies.

In today’s ergonomics, the new Windows Mobile 5.0, MeruNetworks (http://www.merunetworks.com/partners/voip/solution.shtml) and PocketPCs from Dell and HP can soon together deliver VoIP over WIFI on a PDA. But would you want to? Do we really want to hold our Blackberries to our head or just wish we’d have sprung another $50 for a good headset?

Many points well taken. The threat in the near future to G3 simply over stated.

Welcome

Welcome to the Blog for University of Washington Masters in Communications Digital Media student David Moody