Chips and dip and W.L. Bennett

In the fantastical IC cocktail party in my head (and yes, there's a fantastical IC cocktail party in my head) Elizabeth Hanson is the person who bounces around the room talking to everybody; Castells, et. al. is the circle of people having a heady, fascinating intellectual conversaation you can't quite break into; Jeffrey Juris is the guy who grabs your wrist and leans in a little too close when he talks to you; and W.L. Bennett is the guy you run into by the guacamole and end up talking to the rest of the evening. (For the record, Aronson and Cowhey are the guys you accidentally sit next to on the couch and try to politely ignore until your roommate notices your desperate eyebrow semaphores and comes to rescue you.)

I absolutely loved this week's readings, but Bennett's was my favorite by far. The idea of using ICTs for global/social protests was fascinating to me. Some of the examples were familiar to me (the Zapatista movement, the Madrid election, the Nike and Fair Trade Coffee campaigns) and some were totally new (the Estrada ouster, Korea election, the Coca-Cola campaign). What I liked about Bennett's essay was that he was able to examine the events without getting swept away by enthusiasm for the potential of ICTs or anti-globalization movements, which (in my opinion, at least) gave him leeway to reflect a little more on the implications.

Bennett says that governments and institutions and corporations use communication networks to perpetuate the existing political-economic regime -- a regime which, presumably, already benefits them. BUT, activists have also used the same technology to find creative and innovative ways to challenge that power, which is very similar to what Castells said. So, essentially, these new ICTs are benefitting both the status quo and the opposition. To what degree is obviously a contentious matter, which explains why Castells and co. think the Chinese government won the SARS PR situation and Hanson thinks the people did.

All of this ties nicely back to the idea of the "noosphere" (much as I hate the word, I like the concept) and the idea that political movements are heavily influenced by the stories and ideas people try to introduce into the public domain. OK, I realize I'm totally geeking out over these readings, but I really did enjoy them and now I've got all of these interesting ideas buzzing around in my brain. Or maybe that's just the cocktail party chatter...

On the topic of net neutrality...

From Here to Neutrality

Net Neutrality and a Comcast Shout-out

The selections from Cowney and Aronson bring up a lot of interesting points regarding the transformation of power within IC Technology but the point that resonates most is the importance of here and now in the realm of regulation. It becomes clear, through multiple lists and graphical evidence, that the United States will remain in the "pivot" of the inflection point for at least the next fifteen to twenty years. This being said, how will the US strive to continue this domination in the context of growing powers (notably China) as industry production and control mature?

The idea of network neutrality seems to make sense on a very intuitive level but I found it interesting that the evidence from the past ten years is conclusive that the original net neutrality framework was actually a bit counterproductive. The authors note data that indicates that the pricing controls on broadband actually promote discrimination either upstream or downstream. I find it interesting to note, on a personal level, that Comcast was found to be a guilty party "working" the system of net neutrality and, furthermore, followed it up with a shady maneuver at the FCC hearing. I am not surprised nor disappointed to hear that Comcast received a slap on the wrist from the FCC (the customer service gods should do that same) but it serves as a poignant example of the shortcomings of the original net neutrality pricing structure.

Although it has taken a couple of attempts to work out some major gliches in the net neutrality framework, Cowney and Aronson argue that there have been many successes as a result of continued efforts and an ability to maintain focus on the importance of unhindered innovation. A web platform has been created that allows for involvement of content producers and content owners for a stronger and more heterogeneous infrastructure. This platform and innovation ideology are two important factors that I look forward to observing as the new administration continues to look at the major issues facing the ICT governance community.

US ICT Dominance: How long can it really last?

Authors of the book, Transforming Global Information and Communication Markets: The Political Economy of Innovation, Peter Cowhey and Jonathon Aronson argue “the US is likely to be the single largest influence on the global policy agenda”. They argue that the US has the most consistent agenda setter for the global market, has a large lead in ICT stock, has the largest investment base for research and development, is the leader of software, will continue to be within the top three global markets across a full range of ICT markets, and is the leading producer of high value-added content. As I was reading this, I couldn’t help but think about how literally days before, while pumping gas, I was reading random trivia facts that were being displayed on a LCD screen. One of the facts, that came up was that Iceland is ranked the number one country that has the most households with broadband Internet access in the world. I later found out that the US is ranked eighteen. Cowhey and Aronson argue that US dominance of the ICT markets will stick around for a while yet, but if a country as small as Iceland is as connected into the global market, it makes me question whether or not there is more possibility for ICT market growth else where in the world? Globalization enables the existence of competition, so the thought is certainly not outrageous. My point is that this kind of growth could happen much faster than Cowhey and Arsonson propose.

Another issue of interest from the reading is net neutrality. Cowhey and Aronson give evidence to support net neutrality from the past ten years and regulatory bodies, like the FCC, to avoid the prioritization of information. The whole concept of net neutrality- not creating a multi-tiered internet for companies to profit- eliminates the space for yet another digital divide within civil society for those in developing countries to overcome. Thomas Friedman argues that we are in the age of democratization of information. But how democratic is it to control information that passes through the internet? There is not arguing that the internet is a technological discontinuity which has forever changed ICT markets. On a wide scale, maintaining a free and open internet in the public sphere is imperative to international communication, cooperation, and lessening the amount digital divides that exist domestically within the US and internationally.

Who Owns Information?

Usually, I attempt to answer questions pertaining to IC in my blog but after reading selections from Transforming Global Information and Communication Markets: The Political Economy of Innovation this week, I find myself questioning the ownership of information. Cowney and Aronson’s focus on the changing political economy of policy in the United States, specifically in the form of net neutrality, has led me to analyze the diverse state and non-state actors involved in the creation, transmission and consumption of media messages.

As is apparent in the mergers between Verizon and MCI and SBC, AT&T and Bell South, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice work to encourage market competition and the expansion of new communication technologies. A goal of the 2004 “Spectrum of Flexibility,” however, was to allow licenses to more liberally monetize holdings. While some argue that relaxed regulations will result in increased investment and growth, I propose that an economic environment with diminished government control could advance unadvised market-driven (as opposed to consumer-centric) decision making by conglomerates.

Cowney and Aronson’s Chapter five not only brings together previous debates about governance and international communication technologies, but it gives further evidence to support net neutrality and global regulatory measures/bodies to avoid the prioritization of messages and security schemes. Modularity in property rights, advertising and personal networks is crucial to ensure that interconnection discrimination does not exist and users’ rights are upheld.

Ultimately, the question debated in this book and in national socio-economic discourse is “Who owns information?” Although the answer is unclear, my hope is that in today’s participatory information society, policy allowing equality in the transmission and reception of messages will be pursued as the United States continues to seek regulations promoting market development.

To market, to market to buy a fat gig...

For many years, I enjoyed market analysis just a little more than dental surgery, considering it just as tedious, but less likely to induce involuntary drooling. After I was finally persuaded to take an Economics class, I reached a stage of personal development where conversations about opportunity cost and contractionary fiscal policy no longer made my eyes glaze over, but even so, I found this week's market-centric readings a little challenging.

But after I'd buckled down and adjusted to Cowhey and Aronson's writing style (did anybody else think they went a little crazy with the lists?), I found that I was genuinely interested in what they had to say about leadership, pressure and change. From the beginning, they predict that the United States will lead, but not dictate, ICT policy development over the next few decades, largely due to the size and existing strengths of the U.S. ICT industry. They devote pages to discussing how markets in the United States and other national states respond to domestic and international stiumuli and how political and economic bodies respond to changes in the ICT markets. But they only briefly focus on the influence of international institutions -- pointing out that they can initiative global governance shifts and discussing some issues related to principal-agent relationships.

Many of our other readings have suggested that the rising power of international institutions is one challenge that threatens the sovereignty of nation states, and I know that Internet and ICT governance is one area where that has been particularly true. In fact, the Internet Governance Forum (established at the WSIS meeting in Tunis) is largely hailed for establishing a new model of governance in which governments are given no more power than representatives from civil society, NGOs and the private sector. Of course, the IGF is largely a talking body, and Cowhey and Aronson seem more focused on action. While institutions may weigh in, governments are still responsible for establishing policy and their behavior (tragically for me) responds more to political and economic forces of supply and demand.

One of the points I really liked was that changes in technology can raise the necessity for change without dictating its path, which allows a lot of room for agency and explains why individual nations have made such different choices about market regulation and ICT development. What I'd like to know is this: What happens after 2025 when (if Cowhey and Aronson are correct) countries like China and India have risen in significance? Will the absense of one clear market leader lead to greater instability in the global markets? Will it lead to more cautious governance? Will another nation or institution come forward to fill the void? Or will we adopt a more global governance pattern to address the frequently shifting ICT market?

'Information is Power'

The readings this week bring home the cliché expression that “information is power”. In his article entitled, “Communication, Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society”, Manuel Castells discusses how through the use of ICTs, a new form of communication is emerging that he terms the ‘mass-self communication’. He articulates that there is power in this form of communication because it gives rise to the convergence of mass media and communication through the use of social media sites, for instance.

Embedded within the power of communication, Castells also highlights the importance of personality politics and political advertising. Written sometime in 2007, before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, I am not sure the extent to which Castells was exposed to the marketing of the campaign. However, as I was reading this section, I could not escape the fact the Obama campaign hit a cord with the youth of America by advertising itself and what Obama stands for through the use of email, Facebook, Twitter, and not to mention its own interactive website. He was able to mobilize his supporters and brand his campaign as one representing change. Similarly, candidates are running for the office of the Virginia state Governor. Driving past the signs, on my way to and from school, I noticed immediately that democratic candidate Creigh Deeds is using similar colors and logos within his campaign to appeal to those who voted for change within the Presidential election in 2008. Similarly, I have received emails from the campaign iterating President Obama’s endorsement of Deeds for Governor. Through a similar campaign look, Deeds is attempting to generate “symbolic values and trustworthiness” as Castells mentions in his article. The election has not occurred yet but it will certainly be fascinating to see if Deeds’ efforts will result in a win.

While Facebook, Twitter, and blogs have left their imprint on communications as we know them in the past, it still does not solve the problem that not all voices have the agency to be included in this new form of communication. Castells seemingly falls to address the extent to which a large number of people do not have access to new communication technologies. The fact is that the poorest of the poor in all corners of the world do not have access to ICTs to participate in the ‘electronic autism’ of mass-self communication, nor do they have the literacy to use employ this form of communication even if they did have access. This is not to say that I do not value Castell’s contribution, I just wanted to highlight this weakness.

In conclusion, Castells, Benkler and Ronfeldt and Arquilla all discuss, in some fashion, the importance and power of information in networks and it transformative effects being played out in the world. While the Castells reading particularly struck me this week, I found the other two readings to be similarly thought provoking.