Hey - Neutrality is Working Just Fine for Switzerland

After doing some research on my own, and familiarizing myself with the concept and how it affects those involved in the debate, I have emerged as a supporter of network neutrality. Not having a previous stance on the issue, one might question how I reached a conclusion so quickly? The answer seems natural to me, something so simple and so complicated at the same time, much like filesharing, yet something that one person or a group of people does not seem likely to stop or control. So what is the debate behind this still little-known issue?

While almost every article I read on the subject even had its own problems defining network neutrality, my understanding is that certain website owners wish to charge money based on traffic flow, instead of having a free and open internet (the current state of affairs). For example, since Amazon.com has so many more visitors each day than Tony’s Com 125 Blog, should Amazon be able to charge more for the service it provides to so many more users? The best answer to this I could find lies in the article “Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious,” by K.C. Jones. Jones answers the question by comparing the network to an electric grid, which similarly provides a service to multiple people. Built on implicit theory, Jones states that the “grid does not care if you plug in a toaster, an iron, or a computer. Consequently, it has survived and supported giant waves of innovation in the appliance market.” Upon reading this, the debate became so much clearer to me, as did the answer I was looking for. Of course, there are two sides to every debate, and it would be unfair not to examine the opposite position.

Contrarily, there are telecommunications executives that have in mind a fast-lane idea for higher-paying content providers. In other words, these executives argue that they should be allowed to prioritize websites carrying information that is serving a higher purpose (Jones). Furthermore, those who really feel they are being cut-short by network neutrality are those in the cozy seats at corporations, looking as always to make a buck. This is not to criticize top executives, but is merely to point out that those being “affected” by network neutrality are not sleeping on the streets tonight. Whether or not they have a good point about traffic flow and purpose-serving information, they still possess comfortable jobs and comfortable lifestyles. Those who would be affected by the disappearance of network neutrality and the beginning of higher-paying content providers? The common man or woman, of course. As is with most things (taxes!), the common man or woman who makes a decent salary will always be much more affected by such issues than the CEO of a giant corporation. The source of my debate would stem right here, and then I would work outward to the fine details. The main issue, however, is who is actually losing money because of network neutrality? No one. No individual or company is actually losing money, they are simply playing on an even field with the rest of the internet, missing what they feel is the opportunity to gain revenue.

While this debate is much more intense than I can get into in this blog, I am a general supporter of maintaining network neutrality, for its simple lack of discrimination for who you are as a user. The basic concept of packet switching, with no regard for what type of information the packets are carrying, was the foundation for which the internet was built. Moreover, it has allowed the internet to grow into the social infrastructure it has become today, and to be thinking about reshaping it now seems foolish to me.


Resources:

Jones, K.C. (2007, March 16). Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious. Information Week. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from, http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557

'Second Life' Pretty Second-Rate to Real-Life Communication

Upon entering the growing online world of the game “Second Life,” I found myself questioning whether or not the use of the word ‘game’ is justified in a Second Life discussion. Unlike other computer or video games, in this world there is no specific destination, no specific time frame or goal, and no way to “die” or lose (no GAME OVER). This being said, why would anyone want to spend any time at all aimlessly wandering around in a virtual world? The answer that I came up with, and my true feelings on the situation, is that people have an intrinsic need or desire to belong to something that is bigger than themselves. Furthermore, social interaction – in fact, not even necessarily social interaction, but rather the presence of other people participating in the same game at the same time as you, is more psychologically rooted that what we first assume when discussing Second Life.

And now for the basis of my theory? Well, this certainly is a tough thesis to prove, and one that would take more than the three to four hours of evidence that I gathered exploring Second Life. I did, however, find some striking examples of this theory in action with Second Life. The first red flag to me that people want to be in Second Life more than they want to act in Second Life, was what I observed others doing in the game. While I attempted to make contact and communicate with many people over the course of a few hours, none of them seemed to be having any of my conversation (maybe my theory is wildly outrageous and I’m just uncool and unpopular?) Contrarily, I observed people walking around, driving around, dancing, watching movies, and flying. No one, to the best of my ability to interpret what was going on, was communicating with any sort of substance.

Needless to say, I was devastated. This completely shatters what I had pictured in my mind of how Second Life worked before I tried it! I was expecting much more of a chat room-like atmosphere, with constant communication among multiple users. In contrast, everyone seemed perfectly content exploring on their own, “doing their own thing.” As I previously stated, I admittedly did not spend enough time in Second Life to really gather all possible information as to the number of opportunities the world presents to the user. However, I do feel that from my experience in the community, people are more satisfied with the fact that they are present among others, than are they actively seeking out communication or group interaction.

As far as my actual experience within the game’s communities, I found it quite amusing that the general proximity of Second Life’s members, that is to say the “hot spots” or locations that contained the greatest number of users, were the locations that seemingly contained the greatest number of attractive “women.” Much like real life, in which women go to bars and clubs to dance and drink, and men follow them there to try and get a date, locations that were amateurishly titled “Hot Naked Girls,” had booming populations. Many of these locations had absolutely nothing to do with their titles! In other words, while the game does contain certain strip clubs and bars, it seemed that the only way a user would be able to get the world he/she created noticed would be to revisit a classic foundation block of the internet – sex sells.

While Second Life is no different than society in the humorous aspect of men seeking out women, I believe that it actually resembles very little about our world. From my short experience in attempting to interact with others, I have concluded that very few people that are purposely putting themselves in this social situation actually want to participate in social interaction. Therefore, being in Second Life is about equally as lonely as walking down the streets of Buffalo. Sure, there are many people surrounding you and a hustle-and-bustle city feeling that encompasses your walk, but who is going to talk to you? Maybe someone who actively supports Second Life and its effects on communication would like to call me out and disprove my theory? I would have a genuine interest in hearing your argument!