Net Neutrality

As I was reading the second chapter of Media and Culture I came across the case study about Net Neutrality. Net neutrality is when all of the Internet web pages come in at the same speed and have the same access. Basically the companies that pay the telephone and cable companies more money have faster connection, and better access. The telephone and cable companies believe that their priority access should go to the customers paying the higher rates. The small companies who can’t afford what AT&T or Verizon can afford are running slower than the larger corporations. These corporations believe that their inducement to post their websites is based on them having a faster connection than the smaller owned websites. Media and Culture states, “Ironically, the telephone and cable companies seemed to have had plenty of incentive in the past- they’ve built profitable and neutral networks for decades.” This is a good point in displaying how the Internet is becoming as capitalistic as the country. Internet access and speed should be equal for anyone using it. It is the space in the world where someone can run a business on little to no money. That is how the Internet started and that’s how it should remain. The cable companies are just looking to make some extra money off the big corporations instead of thinking of the small businesses that could be completely wiped out over this. Even popular web pages like facebook are all for net neutrality considering they are a free corporation run strictly on advertisements. If the cable companies pass this law of undemocratic Internet use then they will control the fast Internet sites with the more expensive products. Anything you purchase over the Internet that is inexpensive will be less convenient to purchase due to its slow access. Charities and non-profit organizations will be opening just as slow. Getting a law against net neutrality seems extremely unfair to most websites without the big bucks. 

Media Saturation

Media Unlimited by Todd Gitlin was a bit hard to follow for me. I felt as if I was being exposed to a very negative outlook on media. The novel consisted of interesting facts, but slightly uncalled for statistics. I felt like the fact that black people watched more television than white people wasn't relative to the media's effect on us. The author often contradicted himself; for example in the introduction he said that children spend 3 to 4 hours watching TV but only 45 minutes of book or magazine reading. Following that he discussed how the television was affecting their media exposure, as if books and magazines aren't. A few chapters later he stated that magazines were apart of the media as well. I really felt as though the author was especially calling out the television. He spent a lot more time discussing the effects of television than mostly any other form of media. When he was discussing the computers he referred to them as our “creatures.” Gitlin goes back and forth explaining how we buy the computers, so we possess them, but because they don’t react to us, they posses us. I felt as if he went back and forth contradicting himself with many topics. In another chapter Gitlin explains how we our lives are filled of choices such as “an index, an inventory, a menu, a guide.” He explains how we are all willingly involved in the media and it pleases each individual. On the next page he states, “This pointlessness is precisely what we are, by and large, not free not to choose.” (pg.9)  He goes back and forth saying how we have choices, but in reality we don’t. I felt confused by most of this novel, and I wish it was broken down in sections that made it easier to understand. The content was interesting; I was just unaware of where it was going.