- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

FW: Scientific Internet Research; Courses & Books?
by R.Mabry-Hubbard (UMC Student) 29 Apr '06

29 Apr '06

Until their NSF funding ran out in 2002, the University of Maryland sponsored a summer workshop called Scientific Research on the Internet (WEBuse Workshop at http://www.webuse.umd.edu/) I am a graduate student looking to find a similar professional-development (or graduate credit) research methods seminar as coursework towards my area of specialization technology and rural communities. I talked to the former director of the WEBuse; but he was not aware of any similar credentialed opportunities and he acknowledged, there is still demand based on requests they still receive. I have several questions: (1) Is anyone on the listserv aware of courses in the United States or online graduate courses in an English-speaking country dealing with Internet research methods? (2) I am also developing a basic e-research course for beginning undergraduate students and the professor I am working with (at another college), he and I have not had much luck finding a good primer for the course need not be a textbook. I have even reviewed some e-commerce marketing books without much success. I would be interested in any suggestions. The focus of the class will be using the library (electronic resources) to do a basic social science undergraduate research paper. The first time the course is offered, it will be delivered in a blended learning environment with the intention of porting most of the future sections completely online, the fastest growing source of their new students. (3) Im putting together a summer reading list; I would be interested in any suggestions for myself regarding Internet research especially -- qualitative methods for studying online discussion groups; studying online socio-emotional support groups; and cybersociology. In advance, thank you. R ------ Robin Y. Mabry Hubbard, MBA, EdS Rural Sociology Doctoral Student - Community Informatics Email: ryh352(a)mizzou.edu My Homepage: http://www.rrchubbard.org Murphy's Law: There is never enough time to do it right; but there is always time to do it over ~ Our Future arrived Yesterday! ~ [I am not inviting any postmodernist to my party!]

2 1

CFP: Flow Conference 2006
by Nick Muntean 28 Apr '06

28 Apr '06

CFP: Flow Conference 2006 The Flow Conference (Oct. 26 -29, 2006; Austin, TX) -- a series of roundtable discussions with topics created by Flow columnists organized around the future of television and media culture -- is now accepting submissions to join a roundtable. Deadline for submission is: June 15, 2006. The goal of the Flow Conference is conversation. There are no plenary sessions, and participants are asked to submit short position papers (not full-length essays). We want to promote discussion amongst scholars, members of the media industries, media activists, fans, and policy-makers over crucial issues related to television and media. For the list of roundtable topics, please visit the conference website at: www.flowconference.org. To join a roundtable, submit a 250 word abstract identifying the roundtable in which you want to participate and detailing your response to the topic statement, and a short bio, to: flowconference(a)utlists.utexas.edu. Roundtable organizers include: Chris Anderson, Tim Anderson, Patricia Aufderheide, Aniko Bodroghkozy, Will Brooker, Faye Ginsburg, Jonathan Gray, Mary Beth Haralovich, John Hartley, James Hay, Heather Hendershot, Henry Jenkins, Douglas Kellner, L.S. Kim, Derek Kompare, Shanti Kumar, Dan Leopard, Daniel Marcus, Vicki Mayer, Allison McCracken, John McMurria, Tara McPherson, Walter Metz, Jason Mittell, Megan Mullen, Horace Newcomb, Laurie Ouellette, Thomas Schatz, Joe Straubhaar, Sharon Strover, Frederick Wasser. For more information, please visit our website, http://www.flowconference.org, or email us at flowconference(a)utlists.utexas.edu. Michael Kackman, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Radio-TV-Film University of Texas at Austin mkackman(a)mail.utexas.edu

1 0

Re: [Air-l] net neutrality
by Janna Anderson 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

The following "Save the Internet" site is also interesting. It is in favor of "network neutrality." It is also a good example of a grassroots political site with highly formatted responses, etc. http://www.savetheinternet.com/=coalition Janna Anderson On 4/27/06 11:33 AM, "Nancy Baym" <nbaym(a)ku.edu> wrote: > Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on > the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US > congress/senate, including how, if at all, it would have > ramifications outside the US? I know there are many people on here > who pay a lot of attention to these kinds of issues, and I would > really like to hear what you see going on here, > > Thanks, > Nancy > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ -- Janna Quitney Anderson Assistant Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj(a)elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) (336) 446-0486 (h)

2 1

Re: [Air-l] network neutrality
by Bram Dov Abramson 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

One more thing. To respond to the question of international impact, I would think that the main impact will be in leading-by-example and impact-on-industry terms. I don't imagine it will have too direct an impact on Internet provision in other countries. Backbone connectivity is unlikely to be affected, I should think. Much Web content and other applications content is hosted in the U.S. but that's, again, backbone stuff -- the access providers in other countries are, well, in other countries. On the other hand, elaborate tie-ups between commercial logical- and applications-layer enterprises that extend into packet-level discrimination are just not that common. Their level of acceptance in the U.S. environment, business models that get spun around them, and governance response that shape how it all happens -- or doesn't -- will be watched closely and perhaps emulated or resisted. Content providers who won packet-preferencing deals in the U.S., if that catches on, would certainly take their model contracts and try to negotiate similar things with large providers in other jurisdictions. So folks in other jurisdictions will be thinking about this, too. cheers Bram

1 0

Re: [Air-l] network neutrality
by Bram Dov Abramson 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org (15:02, 27.4.2006): >There is definitely an international impact with the potential passage >of COPE of 2006. The telecommunications and cable companies will have >the power to punish and reward content providers through pricing. This >is one way to prevent foreign competition on their marketplace. In >effect, the telecommunications and cable companies would have the >ability to place a toll on content providers such as Google, Yahoo, >Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple and other content providers. I think that they have that power now. They certainly have the technical means. While my knowledge of American communication policy is pretty limited -- I'm writing from Canada -- I would be surprised to learn there were legal or regulatory levers in place to forbid this, so they probably have the legal means, too. The concern may be that, in addition to the opportunity, telcos are being imbued with the incentive to discriminate, too. As I say, others are probably better placed than I to describe U.S. legislative initiatives. But, as I understand it, there've been most recently: - a "Broadband Internet Transmission Services" (BITS) bill which would enshrine a sort of network neutrality precept: "shall not grant any preference or advantage" to any service over another. This is obviously fuzzy, but there it is. I suspect it did not go anywhere. - the COPE initiative now being discussed. As I understand it, the COPE bill's main thrust is about video distribution, ie cable TV. It would allow telcos to obtain national video franchises -- one cable license for the whole country. The fear is that telcos who are now cable distributors would want to discriminate in favour of their own services, and perhaps preempt those of others. A Democrat amendment therefore proposed language to COPE forbidding such discrimination, ie supporting network neutrality, in the context of a bill that would incent telcos to move forward with "unneutral" plans. That language looks not to be making it in, hence the controversy. The issue itself is a bit complex, because there's network neutrality and then there's network neutrality. There's always been *some* network "un-neutrality" -- caching providers like Akamai which provide pay-to-get-good-distribution; spam-fighting ISPs making life hard for outbound mail servers except their own; hard choices which ISPs inevitably have to make about dealing with a mix of traffic from different applications. But as the number of access providers shrinks and the involvement of these providers in application- and content-layer businesses grows, the fear is that this "unneutrality" will be taken to a new level in a way that frustrates non-telco-affiliated applications and content providers, thereby frustrating innovation generally. Seen another way, there's application-based discrimination, and firm-based discrimination. So far, most of the discrimination has been oriented around applications. The fear is that, now, it will get personal and become about who is providing the service, not what the service does to the network. And that, given the emerging duopoly -- broadband providers who don't own legacy copper (telcos, cablecos) don't seem to be living long lives -- there will be nowhere else to switch. (For those interested, in Canada the issue is largely untested. There have been a couple of flaps, but quickly resolved. We in theory have the means to address packet discrimination. A very recent Big Picture Sector Review, at http://www.telecomreview.ca, proposed doing even more about although, as always, noone really knows what the political life of their recommendations will be. The big hurdle is evidentiary, and our regulatory system is not very disposed to going out and gathering evidence on behalf of potential complainants -- something that, to prove network neutrality in a convincing way, may be necessary.) cheers Bram

1 0

net neutrality
by Nancy Baym 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US congress/senate, including how, if at all, it would have ramifications outside the US? I know there are many people on here who pay a lot of attention to these kinds of issues, and I would really like to hear what you see going on here, Thanks, Nancy

2 2

Net neutrality resources
by Graham Longford 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Nancy and others, A number of indy media and public interest groups have been following this issue closely and have useful online resources, such as: Save the Internet Coalition http://www.savetheinternet.com/ FreePress http://www.freepress.net/ Harold Feld's blog - Tales From the Sausage Factory: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/ I am sure there is much more available that other AoIR listers can point you to. Hope these help. Graham -- Graham Longford, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Community Informatics Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto 140 St. George St., Rm 310 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5S 3G6 email: graham.longford(a)utoronto.ca

1 0

Re: [Air-l] net neutrality
by Heidelberg, Chris 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

There is definitely an international impact with the potential passage of COPE of 2006. The telecommunications and cable companies will have the power to punish and reward content providers through pricing. This is one way to prevent foreign competition on their marketplace. In effect, the telecommunications and cable companies would have the ability to place a toll on content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple and other content providers. The result would be that these companies would pass the costs directly to the consumer in form of "premium content" or some Other euphemistic term that disguised its true nature. Oh, but there is more. The telecom and cable companies could also have the ability to charge a rich medium access charge similar to how cable television charges you additionally for premium channels and pay per view for those of us who want things on demand on our portable handhelds. Handhelds like Blackberry's, pocketPCs and iPods may find themselves paying a handheld device fee whereas handhelds marketed by Verizon and AT&T may initially have this fee waived or have a plan that hides this waiver. This is a competitive advantage that the telecom and cable firms have over everyone and the prices will impact international consumers as prices rise. Here is some food for thought: What will happen in two to three years when the power companies are seriously ready to enter the Internet services game and satellite firms discover how to truly exploit wireless connectivity? Yes colleagues, prices are going up because the telecom and cable companies have built expensive fiber optic networks to handle the rich media content like video, gaming and VOIP and now Wall Street wants its profits from these expensive investments. So the K Street warriors have started handing outs campaign contributions and other inducements on the Hill to get this law passed in the name of consumer choice, affordable access and more competition. The reality is that there is no true choice and access will not be affordable and there will be less competition. The Center for Public Integrity actually has a really good book on the history of lobbying and the telecom industry. The real villain here is not the telecom and cable companies as much as it is the Congress and the policy makers who are too busy getting money and promises for their next job to worry about being stewards for the people. The people are simply outgunned and outmanned by the companies which are allowed under the First Amendment to lobby heavily as a result of the Virginia Pharmacy and Bellotti cases in 1976. Before that time, corporations were seen by the courts as a creature created by the law and not possessing rights more powerful than the individual. The international impact could also transform into more international anger with America by countries such as France and now Denmark with American companies like Microsoft and Apple that have used their market superiority to create both competitive advantages and stifle competition. Read Bagdikian's media monopoly and any of Lawrence Lessig's books such as Code. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Janna Anderson Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:39 AM To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] net neutrality April 26, 2006 Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up By Roy Mark/JupiterMedia's Internetnews.com WASHINGTON - Looking at possible antitrust implications of having telecoms and cable companies controlling 99 percent of U.S. broadband connections, a special task force of the House Judiciary Committee took up network neutrality. Like other committees that have heard testimony on network neutrality, the Judiciary panel heard conflicting interpretations on whether legislation is needed to ward off discrimination by broadband providers. Verizon and AT&T have publicly stated they intend to charge content providers different fees based on bandwidth consumption to access consumers, but will not block, degrade or impair delivery of the content to consumers. Tech companies and a growing coalition of consumer groups contend the plan amounts to discrimination since those who can pay the broadband providers' rates will have a competitive advantage over those who can't. "All sides of the net neutrality debate agree that consumers should be control of their Internet experience," Walter McCormick of the U.S. Telecom Association said. "Where we differ is on whether consumers alone should foot the bill for the advanced networks that drive the Internet's growth and evolution." McCormick said Internet content providers seeking to profit on new high-speed fiber networks should not expect a free pass on all costs associated with the increased bandwidth capacity to deliver services and applications. "If you want more, then you pay more, is as American as it comes," he said. "It is a straightforward market proposition. As companies move into live video and gaming and advanced services, they will be seeking more bandwidth." Columbia University Professor Tim Wu spun it another way. "It's as if the electric company one day announced that refrigerators made by General Electric would henceforth not work quite as well as those made by Samsung," Wu said. "That would be a shock, because when it comes to the electric grid and the Internet, people are used to a network that they are free to use as they wish." Wu said the issue of network neutrality is really an issue about market power concentration. "Whatever AT&T and others may claim as motives, the potential for abuse of market power is obvious to everyone," he said. "Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access. Many of us wish things were otherwise, but they are not." Given the concentration of market power between the telcos and the cable companies, Wu said it was clear AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other power players coiuld make more money by distorting competition between Internet firms. "It [AT&T] can, through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up," Wu said. "It's basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while it makes sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn't particularly good for the nation's economy, innovation or consumer welfare." The House Judiciary debate came on the eve of a vote in the House Commerce Committee on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE). The centerpiece of COPE is national video franchising for IPTV providers such as Verizon and AT&T. With the goal of increasing competition in the pay television market, the proposal enjoys wide support on both sides of the aisle. More controversial is network neutrality. Republicans see little problem with the tiered access approach proposed by the telecoms and leave enforcement of network neutrality violations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Democrats and a growing coalition of tech companies and consumer groups, want the FCC's network neutrality principles, which have no force of law, turned into statutory law. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is expected to propose an amendment to COPE to do just that. A similar proposal three weeks ago was handily defeated by the Republicans, 23-8. On 4/27/06 11:33 AM, "Nancy Baym" <nbaym(a)ku.edu> wrote: > Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on > the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US congress/senate, > including how, if at all, it would have ramifications outside the US? > I know there are many people on here who pay a lot of attention to > these kinds of issues, and I would really like to hear what you see > going on here, > > Thanks, > Nancy > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change > options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ -- Janna Quitney Anderson Assistant Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj(a)elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) (336) 446-0486 (h) _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

1 0

ALAIC - deadline 30/04
by Suely Fragoso 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Prezados colegas. Lembro a todos que o prazo para inscrição de trabalhos no VIII Congresso Alaic vai até o dia 30 deste mês de abril. Os trabalhos devem ser remetidos diretamente ao coordenador do GT de interesse. A relação dos coordenadores, bem como todos os demais dados sobre o evento, que acontece de 19 a 21/07, na Unisinos, estão no sítio www.unisinos.br/eventos/alaic. Destaco ainda que estudantes em geral (de Doutorado, Mestrado e Graduação) pagam preços especiais, sendo que os valores mais reduzidos, para todos os interessados, foram prorrogados e estão valendo até o dia 8 de maio. Esperando encontrá-los durante o evento, Sue Fragoso

1 0

Textbook recommendation
by NIP JOYCE 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

I would be teaching an undergraduate semester course Social Aspects of Media Technology next year. Could anyone recommend a good textbook? Thanks Nip Yee-man, Joyce, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Journalism Hong Kong Baptist University Kowloon Tong Hong Kong T: (852) 3411 7834 F: (852) 2336 1691

1 0