Thursday, April 12, 2007

Net neutrality isn't so neutral.

I consider the internet to be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century. I love how it brings me infinite amounts of information at blazing speeds wherever I am. The internet is a major part of my life and I think a large majority of people would agree that it contributes a significant part to their lives as well. Upon learning about the topic (net neutrality) for our final blog, I had no idea what that was. I did some research and I now have a greater understanding of what net neutrality is, and what the arguments surrounding it are.

It took me a while to get a grasp on what net neutrality is and Information Week sympathizes with my frustrations to find a solid definition. “Net neutrality is so contentious that many people debating it cannot even agree on a definition” (Jones, 2007). However, after reading various articles I have come to the conclusion that net neutrality is an internet where all websites are considered equal, and people can access content without any higher entity interfering. As we all know from this class, the internet we use today allows information to move in data packets with almost no regard for what type of information or applications they contain or who created them. The debate over net neutrality is should the internet remain the way it is today where people can roam free and access any website they wish, or, have the internet regulated by major corporations for a fee.

Proponents or internet-based companies for net neutrality such as Google and Yahoo!, want the internet to stay neutral. People access their information and content without any obstacles. Their success comes largely from the current function of the internet and the infrastructure (or pipes) put down by companies (opponents) like AT&T, Verizon Communications, Time Warner and Comcast. If net neutrality didn’t exist, these big businesses would have control over what websites are faster and which have more priority over others. A website that is irrelevant to lets say Time Warner or doesn’t portray them in a good light can be very slow to access or even banned. Many people think of this as discrimination or a violation of freedom of speech. I tend to agree with that. If the internet is divided up, I may not be able to read someone’s opinion about the next election because a certain big name company happens to believe in an opposing political arena.

Internet-based companies like Amazon.com, Google, and Yahoo! are said to consume a lot of bandwidth from the other aforementioned companies (opponents) for no cost. The opponents of net neutrality say that “Companies that refuse to pay might find their content moving at slower speeds over the pipeline than the content of those companies that do pay” (WSJ, 2006). This would ultimately hurt the internet-based companies and more specifically the public. Proponents are fighting hard everyday to protect their companies and their consumers.

The opponents want control over the internet. They pay for the foundation of the internet so they want to structure it as they see fit. This means no government regulation as well. The CEO of AT&T feels that it is totally unfair that other small company’s profit off of their expenditures. Edward Whitacre stated, “We and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts.” After hearing many of the big company’s’ arguments one could get a sense that they are just looking to make more of a profit for themselves.

I feel the internet should stay the way it is today. I am for net neutrality. I have no problems with it and I enjoy being able to access any website at a fast rate. One of the biggest things about the internet is that it allows people to share their information and opinions. If a big company or opponent of net neutrality blocks that because it doesn’t favor them I would be extremely upset. I know that nothing in the world is free, but to have to pay for internet access that doesn’t even live up to your expectations is absurd. I know websites aren’t people, but like people, websites should not be discriminated or segregated against because they all contain the thoughts, facts and opinions of real people.

References

Network neutrality. (2007, April 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:46, April 12, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_neutrality&oldid=122005930

Jones, K. C. (2007, March 16). Informationweek.com. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=198001557

Efrati, Amir. (September, 2006). The Wall Street Journal: A Battle for Control of the Web. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06sep/htop_netneutrality.htm

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Time to Conquer the Virtual Economy!

Online gaming is one of the fastest and most popular growing phenomena’s to hit the internet. There are many aspects to it and people find them enticing…and even addicting. Online games allow people to escape “reality” and enter a world that is unlike any other. People enter online gaming communities and interact with people that they will most likely never meet. However, the relationships formed online can grow very strong and allow for some truly fun and engaging experiences to take place. This is often considered a major factor for why people become so addicted. Some gamers enjoy the thrill of slicing a deadly orc with their newly acquired sword while others like to test their skills against other people from around the world. But perhaps one area of online gaming that is interesting to look at is “virtual” economies.

According to wikipedia.org, virtual economies are “an emergent economy existing in a virtual persistent world, usually in the context of an Internet game.” With the rise of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) like World of Warcraft and Second Life, millions of people are beginning to utilize the games for more than they were originally intended for. Instead of killing night elves and resurrecting fallen comrades, people are logging on to seek monetary gain. How can people earn money through a game you might ask? Well the answer is quite simple. eBay.com and pretty much any website that accepts a credit card allow people to exchange real money for virtual goods such as gold, weapons and high-leveled characters. These purchases can give players an edge over those who do not buy virtual goods, and many consider that unfair. World of Warcraft discourages this kind of activity because it’s essentially cheating your way to the top but Second Life actually encourages it because it’s designed to emulate real life but in the virtual world. In Second Life, fake money earned in the game called Lindens can actually be traded for real US dollars. That’s the ultimate goal of most people who play it.

The term, "closed" virtual economy is used for MMORGs like WoW whereas the term, "open" virtual economy is used for simulation games like Second Life. The economy designed for World of Warcraft was built to stay in it (closed). Players are supposed to find their own gold on their own time and use that to buy weapons and other items. It defeats the purpose of the game to go on eBay and buy everything you need. People spend hours everyday trying to get what someone else bought in one minute online. Now you may ask, well that complaining person could do the same. Their response could vary from they don’t have the money to do that, or they don’t want to because that “kills” the whole point of the game. As mentioned above, people play online games to explore and escape to another world. You can’t buy experiences or online relationships. Selling virtual items online does hurt the company developers financially. WoW is a game with a monthly fee, so if people buy everything in one shot, Blizzard (games’ creator) loses out on all those months of fees.

As for Second Life, the economy is open to everyone. People can purchase land from the developers for real US dollars. After this purchase they can build up their virtual world even more and earn a great deal of Linden Dollars (the in-game currency). Finally they can exchange these Linden dollars for more US dollars at an online market. I think this economy is excellent for people who want to learn about business and earn real money in a way that was never possible before. “One user claimed last November that her Second Life property business has made her a real-world millionaire” (Giles 2007). That’s absolutely incredible and it’s all possible because of online gaming. In addition to that, it creates a lot of buzz and encourages other people to sign up in hopes of earning some kind of profit.

Online gaming is changing the way people utilize the internet and it provides an outlet for the stresses of daily life. It is creating such an impact on today’s society that it has even created a new type on economic system; the virtual economy. Unlike other real life economies, people can choose if they want to engage in the virtual economy. Even more interesting is the fact that they can participate in a virtual economy for possible monetary gain.

References

Virtual economy. (2007, March 29). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:04, April 5, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_economy&oldid=118822136

Giles, Jim. (2007). Life’s a game. Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7123/full/445018a.html