Blog posts during my holiday breaks are sporadic. I have more time, but I may be spending time in locations that make it difficult to connect my computer (not my TREO) to the Internet. I guess we all need a break.
Net neutrality is one of those issues that most citizens are unprepared to take sides on, but that may be decided before the long term (or even short term) consequences are known.
The controversy involves the issue of whether service providers can charge extra for allowing access to certain content or can prioritize what content moves through their fiber. To me, the concern seems to involve what might happen and what might happen is not necessarily obvious from our present experiences. The providers contend they must be able to generate a reasonable amount of revenue and somehow this potential is being limited. I have really tried to understand this position and must admit I struggle. I think the argument is that the popularity of new applications (e.g., streaming media) may swamp capacity reducing the number of subscribers who can be serviced. One solution from this perspective might be to charge more for those clients who want to receive such content. So, it might be fair for you to read your email and view static web pages for $29.95 a month, but not spend hours watching YouTube or watching CNN Pipeline.
The neutrality position suggests that making money should not involve the opportunity to control what content is sent through “the pipe”. This is the situation in which what could happen is the problem. Companies with the money to be major players are complex and do much more than put fiber optic cable in the ground. For example, you may access the Internet through your cable company or through your phone company. While the cable company must be able to generate money by providing Internet access, should it be able to retard the flow of packets that would allow you to view video? Online video represents a challenge to a cable company’s interest in selling you more cable channels – nothing to do with fiber capacity. A similar position exists for phone companies. What if a phone company decided that VOIP packets should be slowed unless users wanted to pay a premium? Potentially, companies could make money by providing access to the Internet and also control access in ways that allow the companies to make more money from other unrelated services.
C|NET reports that the recent FCC agreement to allow BellSouth and ATT to merge required these companies to agree to certain principles proposed by consumer advocacy groups. A major argument that net neutrality legislation is not needed has been that competition would make packet discrimination a bad business decision. In other words, if your local cable provider wanted to charge you more for watching YouTube and this was a big interest of yours, you might move your account to DSL. However, mergers and other factors that reduce access to potential competitors diminish the validity of this argument. So, these two providers agreed to the nondiscriminatory expectations to move their merger ahead. However, the agreement holds for only 30 months.
This is not the most serious issue facing the new congress, but it is also much more significant that most people realize. Pay attention.
[Appended – here is another related piece from the New York Times]
As most know by now, the Time Person of the year is YOU. You in the Time perspective refers to OUR involvement in the participatory net (Web 2.0).
I do not typically read Time online so I am not familiar with their conventions for offering magazine content online. When I first tried some days ago, the articles were not available, but now it appears that most articles can be read without purchasing the paper version. This is worth a look – not because any of the articles concern educational topics, but because the discussion of Web 2.0 topics is useful to those interested in general Internet use.
The article I found most useful was a short piece by Jeff Howe (I could not find this article online). I tend to be attracted to useful ways of describing or categorizing complete phenomena. In keeping with the theme of YOU as person of the year, Mr. Howe described Web 2.0 as:
I have written about the emotional attachment I have to some of my computers in previous posts. I do understand that these machines are just machines, but some machines also represent part of my personal history. I have used some of these machines to write the stories of my life.
Cindy gave me a MacBook Pro for Christmas and now I must decide what to do with my old iBook. By the way, this is the first “high-end” laptop I have owned. Typically, I have purchased the same type of laptop that would be used in K-12 classrooms, but not this time. Selling the G4 didn’t seem right and it also seemed pointless to add another laptop to the collection that lives under my desk. Cindy came up with a great solution – donate the computer to the hospital were our daughter works. Lynn is a physical therapist who specializes in maintaining the physical capabilities of children who are involved in long-term chemotherapy. She seems to have inherited her mother’s creative bent and comes up with unique and motivating ideas for these children. Her most recent brainstorm resulted in the production of individualized exercise CDs for her clients. She called up mom and Cindy talked her through the use of Garageband to generate her creations complete with her narrations. She has been using her own machine, but colleagues have become interested and want to generate their own. This seems like a productive new use for the G4. The only concern is whether the hospital IT folks will approve the use of a “nonstandard” product.
Apple makes it easy to transfer the files and programs from an old machine to a new machine. It is part of the startup process. What doesn’t seem to make the transition that well are some of the registration codes. I have spent most of the morning figuring out how to deauthorize and then authorize iTunes, etc. Most software products I download and I save the registration codes in GMail. A quick search and I can usually locate anything I have added in the last year or so. The one product that has me stumped is Microsoft Office. I am guessing the process assumes I will hunt up the install disk and either get the code from the box or reinstall. What a hassle – I am out of town for another week. Instead I have downloaded OpenOffice. Between OpenOffice and Writely, I can write and read any document required in my work. I have been in this position before and it was the capacity of the spreadsheet application rather than the writing tool that proved to be the barrier.
It is a little early for resolutions, but today swearing off Office would seem like a good choice. It will probably come down to getting along without Office or trying to lose weight again. Losing weight would be good, but messing with Office is also a threat to my blood pressure and perhaps a more significant risk to my health ….
We are in Minneapolis sharing the holiday with our children. It is Addison’s first Christmas and at this age she enjoys the wrapping paper and the stocking as much as the presents.
Cindy did buy me a MacBook Pro (more on that later). Enjoy the day!
Like many bloggers I started blogging years ago using blogger.com. At first I used their site and then I purchased the pro version so I could serve blog content from my own server. Eventually, I moved on to software that was more powerful.
Blogger.com remains an extremely popular choice. Now, Blogger.com has been upgraded and some of the changes may make the service of greater interest to educators. One of the basic concerns has been that students may reveal information that could put them at risk. Blogger.com offers some new security options. It is possible to limit access to those designated within a set of email addresses. If you want to make the effort, the group that can access a blog can be carefully controlled.
I promised yesterday that I would comment on the recent Time magazine articles that have commented on education and the participatory Internet. The cover story of the Dec. 18 Time addresses the question How to Build a Student for the 21st Century?
The summary –
Today’s economy demands not only a high-level competence in the traditional academic disciplines, but also what might be called 21st century skills.
The article presents a view that should be familiar to educators who attend national conferences or follow many education bloggers. Actually, Friedman’s The World is Flat presents what I would regard as a similar and more comprehensive analysis of many of the same issues (Friedman’s work is mentioned). US students will need to acquire an expanded set of skills to compete in a flat world – greater awareness of the world including a commitment to other languages, higher order thinking skills, the capacity to use information more efficiently and more wisely, improved skills in cooperative processes, etc.
The article references a new report – Tough Choices For Tough Times – that provides the summary of a new panel offering advice on a new direction for K-12 education. My copy is on order. I hope the corporate leaders and politicians who feel empowered to set such an agenda also have answers for what should be related funding questions. I assume the Department of Education association with this report will assure an extended conversation of the findings.
The authors do acknowledge what I think is a core question when reform recommendations are advanced? How are educators supposed to meet existing expectations (e.g., NCLB) for core knowledge and take on a new array of expectations? The answer seems to be “focus” – teach core concepts and forget the details. I have encountered this idea – depth vs. breadth – in reviewing analyses of international TIMMS data. If I remember the argument, other countries who seem to score better tend to focus on fewer objectives. US schools tend to both focus on many objectives and spend a considerable time each year reviewing objectives taught in previous years.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
