Any Way You Want, Thats The Way You Get it... thanks to Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality

    The way the internet is works today is that everyone is connected to one another on the same level playing field. Same level playing field referring to a concept about fairness  under which everyone plays by the same set of 'rules'. But a handful of phone and cable companies want to change all of that, they want to lock down parts of the web. And make sites pay more money for them to use it, while the rest of the sites get the 'slow lane'. How will they do that. By destroying on the Internets founding principles; net neutrality.
    So let us start from the beginning. You connect to the web through a series of pipes owned by telephone and cable companies. The deal is they are not allowed to alter what is inside those pipes. Whether it is Yahoo or Google, everybody's website gets the same speed and quality. No matter who you are, or what service provider you use, your access to sites is exactly the same.  This idea of fairness and security is what we refer to as net neutrality.
    Well the problem is companies want to reserve a restricted 'fast lane' on the Internet. But only for their partners and services. Only sites that pay a substantial fee would be allowed to use it., making the companies gatekeepers. This would eliminate this concept of net neutrality. Big companies, for example AT and T and Bell, will use their power to control your internet connections by degrading or block access to other providers. The internet is known as “content that is streamed to the user when the user demands” [1] but is slowly losing that meaning as net neutrality becomes a more serious issue day after day. Internet providers could control what is seen, instead of allowing users to browse and share freely. In effect, also stopping the spread of knowledge from one person to another, which is key to human interaction. By stopping the spread of knowledge, service providers essentially relegate the internet to a kind of “second television”, where they control the message.
    This leads me to question society’s right to freedom. Net neutrality eliminates the democratization of technology, because individuals will no longer be able to afford the information being disseminated over the Internet. Major media corporations become the leaders of our society, without considering the needs and wants of the citizens. Democracy is neglected in exchange for commerce and financial status. Hegemony is demonstrated accurately, as wealthy corporate giants and ISPs express their leadership by controlling the Internet.
    It would appear though as the biggest concern here is money. In order to get business from the consumer, they would go as far blocking certain content. Forcing the consumer to bring their business straight to them. Companies love money in their pocket, greed is key  Unfortunately, it would appear though as the folks at congress do not think this important to put this into law. So until then I'm going to enjoy my internet freedom.

* If you are still able to read this then net neutrality is still in effect.*

Work Cited
[1] Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down
Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Rogers, We Have Lift Off

Media/Hegemony

     As I look at my HBC rewards card, I realize that it can be used at a number of stores owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company. At the plaza at which I work, there used to be a Home Outfitters, which was owned by HBC. Unfortunately, the store closed and was replaced by a SportChek, a subsidiary of The Forzani Group Ltd. The plaza also has a Mark’s Work Warehouse, but my rewards card does not work there because the store is no longer owned by HBC, but by Canadian Tire, another business conglomerate. As I begin to realize that all the stores at my plaza are owned by huge business I begin to question what was going on? In researching various stores, I began to realize that they were all owned by a small number of major corporations.

     In the same manner almost all retail chains are owned by huge corporations, there is also a concentration of ownership with various media outlets and technologies. When I think of Rogers Communications, for example, I immediately think of telephones. A corporation that provides the public with the ability to communicate with one another via cell phone or telephone. Little did I know,  Rogers Communications is an enormous corporation with an alarming amount of power.

They own telephone companies, radio and cable station, television networks, publishing companies, and sports teams. You can not go anywhere in Canada without seeing the Rogers emblem being displayed on something. Check out this awesome site to see a long list of Roger Communications holdings. (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=rogers )

     The idea of all these companies trying to make it to the top has to do with the 'rip, mix and burn' theory proposed by Lessig.[1] Companies know what the public wants. The only thing that determines the difference is the way of delivering their findings. They rip the culture around them, mix their ideas into something new and creative, then burn it into the culture the best they can.          

     To give you an example of how much power Rogers has lets go through a quick run down of how Rogers is ingrained in many aspects of my life. I recently saw my parent’s bills for things such as telephone, internet, and cable. I expected to see three different bills from three different companies. Nope, it all came in one nice package, marked with the Rogers emblem at the top right of the bill. After looking at the bill, I go to relax and watch television.  I began to watch SportsNet to see how the local baseball team did. The reporter announced, “Next on Rogers’ SportsNet, we see how the Toronto Blue Jays faired against the Yankees as the battled it out at the Rogers Centre” AHHHHHH! You will always be known as the SkyDome in my heart. Okay, no problem. I'll call my friend on my cell phone to discuss how Rogers dominates my life. Upon turning on my cell phone, the Rogers symbol appears as the phone boots up. At that point, I had to admit there was no escaping from Rogers, the large corporation. 

     While, there may not appear to be any harm with large corporations controlling many media outlets. However, I think it is difficult to find objective, unbiased news when the majority of publications and broadcasts in our society are owned by a select few media moguls. For example, on CityTv the often promote and show commercials for the radio station CHIFI.   However, the average viewer may not realize that CityTv and CHFI are owned by the same parent company.  Thus, parents companies can utilize a variety of its assists to serve their best interests. This results in the fabrication of culture by major media companies.

     Another problem with a concentration of ownership, is the fact that most of our information is coming from one source, and there is no room for diversity from other sources. We believe that we have all these different sources of media that offer us semi-objective facts. However, what’s really happening is that we do have a variety of media sources, but they are all owned by a relatively small number of large media companies and this enables them to put their messages out over a variety of media sources, promoting their messages and ideas even further. I don’t think that cross-media ownership is beneficial to the public because we are lead to believe that we are receiving a variety of viewpoints in the media but, really, we are only receiving a select few, over and over again.

Work Cited

[1]  Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 2005. 24.

Buy Nothing Today, Buy it Tomorrow Instead.

Buy Nothing Day

“There’s only one way to avoid the collapse of this human experiment of ours on Planet Earth: we have to consume less.”

     Buy Nothing Day is an anti-consumerism day perpetuated by social activists all around the world. Typically held the Friday after the American Thanksgiving, the event seeks to bring national awareness to over-consumption and advocate for practices of material conservation. To achieve such a goal, the group calls for a boycott of any material consumption for 24 hours.  They also recommend that participates be environmental conscious and turn off any non-essential appliances or amenities for the day.

     While the event is noble in its cause, its long term impacts on the population’s consumer habits is questionable. On Buy Nothing Day, individuals do not buy anything, and simply go cold turkey. They cut up your credit cards and hide their money. Essentially, they go on a consumer fast. However, when the clock hits 12 am, individuals will likely celebrate by going out and shopping. Wait that is not right? It would appear in modern society, one which is rooted in material consumption, any attempt to forever change people’s purchasing habits is helpless.
     But who is to blame for society’s inability to conserve their purchase and not over-consume?  Can the finger be pointed at advertising companies?   Advertising companies are always trying to convince individuals to buy the latest and new products. Nevertheless, we control our actions, so to solely blame advertising companies is unfair. That is like society blaming McDonalds for the nation’s obesity problem. Advertisements may play a small role in over consumption but it is ultimately the consumer who has control over their actions.

     Buy Nothing Day, in my opinion, is about resisting planned and perceived obsolescence. As a society, we consume much more than we need. We are bombarded with advertisements and messages from big businesses, which drive us to consume more and more. We believe that we need to keep up with the trends, buy what is currently popular and continuously replace the things we already have with things that are newer and better. By participating in Buy Nothing Day, individuals may not change their consumption patterns but perhaps by having individuals reflect on their daily habits, they may begin to see the broader picture.  They will begin to realize, even if it is for a split second, they need to change their consumer habits and begin to rethink the purchases they make.  If Buy Nothing Day can accomplish such as task, then perhaps one day we can achieve positive change.

Global Village: A Not To Distant Future

Theory/ Praxis

    Marshall McLuhan, a fixture in media discourse, was interviewed by Eric Norden for Playboy Magazine. In the interview, McLuhan discussed several theories surrounding the media and media technologies. One of McLuhan’s more compelling theories revolved around a term he coined himself, the “global village.”  McLuhan’s detailed description of the “global village,” conjures images of our current reality, almost forty years prior to its existence:

“The transformations are taking place everywhere around us. The cities, corporate extensions of our physical organs, are withering and being translated along with all other such extensions into information systems, as television and the jet — by compressing time and space — make all the world one village and destroy the old city-country dichotomy. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — all will disappear like the dinosaur. The electric media will create a world of dropouts from the old fragmented society, with its neatly compartmentalized analytic functions, and cause people to drop in to the new integrated global-village community”. [1]

    When McLuhan first conceptualized the idea of a “global village,” the world was a different place.   Information was largely limited to its own geographic location. With the invention of the printing press, and later photographs, feelings of time and space began to compress. Such feelings were intensified with the invention of the telephone, television, and improved air travel. However there was no particular medium that was as instantaneous, convenient, and expansive as that of the Internet.
    On the Internet, physical distance was no longer a barrier to the real-time communication.  Thus, social spheres were greatly expanded by the openness of the web. The ease at which people could search for online communities and interact with others that share the same interests was unimaginable. In a matter of a few years, the Internet has consolidated itself as a very powerful platform that has changed the way we do business, and the way we communicate. The Internet has become the universal source of information for millions of people, at home, at school, and at work. E-mail enables us to bypass the time delay of letters and send texts directly to the person in seconds. Instant messengers are free compared to the telephone and you can have more than one conversation at once. Video messaging eliminates the need to travel, as you can see anyone around the world from the comfort of your home. 

     I can communicate with my relatives form South American all with a simple click. Therefore, this technology supports the idea of an amalgamate, yet unified global community.  However, the great divider that stands in the way of a truly global society is fact that there are many different languages spoken in our planet Earth. So one day when we create one universal language, will this term global village be in  full effect. One day...

Work Cited
[1] “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Heim.ifi.uio.no. Playboy, Mar. 1969. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html.

Shaving Is for Suckers- MOvember

Activist projec

     Recently, there has been an increase in the number of men sporting beards in the city of Toronto. And no, the economy is not to blame why people have started to penny pinch and not purchase shaving razors. Men everywhere are growing beards in support of Movember, No Shave November. Movember is a month long event where men do not shave  in order to raise awareness about prostate cancer. The event began in Australia five years ago, when a few men joked about 80's fashion and discussed about bringing back the moustache. The men then thought it would be a good idea to use their moustaches to serve a greater purpose and  raise money for prostate cancer research. With this, the moustache  became a symbol for prostate cancer, in the same fashion the pink ribbon became the symbol for breast cancer.

    To begin the event, men start off the month clean shaven. They then have the rest of the month to grow there “mo”, Australian slang for moustache, while raising awareness for prostate cancer and collecting donations from friends and family. The “mo bro”, someone who participates in Movember, thus becomes a walking billboard and advocate for prostate cancer.  

    Movember is unique in comparison to other charities because it focuses on a men's health issue. It also utilizes something simple as growing a moustache and turns it into something very powerful. In 2008, the Movember campaign in Canada raised $2.4 million.  Thus, making it the largest charity event for men.

    I love the idea of Movember because as well as supporting a great cause, you get to have fun along the way. Men get creative in the styles in which they shape there moustaches. Hopefully, the awareness against Men's health issues has grown significantly since the creation of Movember. So as our moustaches continue to grow, so will our awareness.

    So the question now becomes for me will I take the plunge and participate in Movember. The answer is yes. Unfortunately, I was blessed with my mother’s genes. My inability to grow facial hinr has hindered my performance and not allowed me to participate in Movember. However, if you look closely, I am certain that you will be able to see some facial hair growing.  Maybe I should not shave for an extended period of time, perhaps a year, to make for my lack of hair growing. Just a thought.

                                 
I made a sketch of what i would look like with facial hair.
There is probably a connection between recent drop in shaving cream sales and Movember, hmmmmm....

Work Cited 

"Movember Canada - About". Movember Canada Official Website. Movember Canada, 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. http://www.ca.movember.com/about/.

Starving for Attention...Won't Somebody Please Look at Me!

Culture Jamming

     Culture jamming is a hard term to grasp at first, even though we are surrounded by it everyday. We see it on billboards, street signs, in emails, and even in videos. Cultural jamming is when billboards and advertisements attempt to counter hegemonic culture by commenting on the media itself or issues in greater society. Within in our society, individuals are exposed to thousands of corporate ads each day. Cultural jamming advertisements, for example, may mock the original advertisement done by the company, while at the same time communicating myths or truths about the product or media itself.

Culture jamming is thus the practice of fighting back against the corporate advertisers and offers an alternative medium for individuals to voice an opinion about anti-corporation, anti-consumer, anti- materialism and overall anti-advertising.
     Culture jamming often focuses on issues within society, and does so in a playful manner. Such advertisements are often satirical about a wide range of topics and poke fun at little stupid things, as well as expose big names in a comical way. Ultimately, they make us rethink reality and highlight problems with our culture.

     For example, I choose a 'Buffalo David Bitton' advertisement. The original advertisement displays a woman dressed in Buffalo clothing. It is a simple black and white advertisement who’s main purpose is to display and the sell the clothing. Within the advertisement, an area of discussion is how astonishingly thin the woman appears. A 'Jammer' appropriately placed a sticker right on her head reading the message, 'starving for attention'. “If the words lock in the “meaning” of a sequence, then the pictures can really take off”.[1] A simple statement as 'starving for attention' is able to take the picture to another level. The picture is presented with a new and effective message.
      This is a direct message towards women who face dissatisfaction wi0th their bodies. Women, who are constantly being told to improve their appearance and advertised by our culture unhealthy eating portions, the ’Jammer’ advertises that it is alright to not be as thin as the model.
     As a male, I can honestly say that being extremely thin is not attractive. However, advertisements showcase unnatural body sizes that put the idea in woman's mind that this is what attractive looks like. Nevertheless, with a simple phrase the Jammer was able to alter the message of the advertisement and at the same time criticize social norm.
      As stated by Lessig, “creative work has value”[2] and culture jammers take these pre-made works, and add some kind of flare to it, giving it that imaginative touch”. In the case of the Buffalo advertisement, the Jammer has creatively turned a clothing advertisement into a social commentary about women and the unrealistic standards portrayed by the media..

Work Cited

[1] McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. Print. 159. New York: Harper Collins, 1994.
[2] Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down
Culture and Control Creativity. Print. 18. New York: Penguin, 2004.