The internet is considered by many to have already made as large of an impact on society as the printing press had. The possibilities of online interaction are still expanding. Will we see a web 3.0? No one knows for sure and not many people are bold enough to say what the internet will have in store for us because nobody predicted great innovations like myspace, amazon, or p2p sharing.
The effects that the internet has on American economies are an interesting subject because there is a potential problem. That potential problem is loss of jobs due to the increasing use of the internet. We have already begun to see the effects of p2p sharing, free online news and much more. These are benefits as of now, but what will happen to music artists and journalists jobs? Like stated previously, nobody knows for sure but it can and should be argued that rapid expansion of the internet is like playing with fire. We must be careful and monitor the internet’s growth because there are many jobs at stake.
Could the internet lead to the death of a salesman? It’s possible because we have already begun to see minor effects. For example, like I have stated in my previous blogs, I work as a retail electronics salesman and my company’s main competitor is not the electronics store down the street; it’s online wholesalers like Amazon or NewEgg. Because the big discount online stores don’t have to pay employees like myself to sell a product, they can afford to sell products close to cost. Often times, if the company meets a certain quota for selling a particular brand so many times, they are reimbursed by that company. But how do customers purchase a product that they haven’t heard about? There are numerous customer reviews featured on the product pages of websites that anyone can read. Instead of listening to a review given by a salesman, who doesn’t own the product, you can read reviews from actual customers, who have already purchased it.
Why do customers leave reviews? Well, as stated in my previous blogs, online gift economies are becoming increasingly important because customers assist other customers without any expectation of direct reciprocation. These product reviews function as a customer union, where customers from all over connect to help each other make a better informed decision to lessen the possibility of buyer’s remorse. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, most retail stores have begun offering customer reviews online as of this past Christmas season to compete with Amazon.
We have heard much talk in recent years about the dangers of outsourcing labor to India and other regions of the world. Instead of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, we are beginning to see an increasing trend in the outsourcing of customer service and IT jobs thanks to IT technology. It sounds like a paradox if you ask me.
If you need to request information regarding your newly purchased computer or your credit card bill, you may be speaking to someone in India, who speaks broken English and is taking jobs away from the U.S. The internet has made this possible because companies can provide these people who are outsourced labor with your customer information over the company network. Here are just a few examples of companies that I have dealt with, who outsource customer service reps: Best Buy, Verizon, Dell, Microsoft, Linksys, DirecTV, and Sirius. The numbers are frightening according to PBS, who claims 3.3 million jobs will be lost by 2015 according to a study by Forrester Research. Apparently Microsoft has invested $400 million dollars into India for customer service.
What about the decline of newspaper readership due to the internet? Today, you can read all news articles online on cnn.com for example or you can check out what other people think about the latest political news on political blogs, like digg.com. The internet offers more interaction, where anyone can become someone. Could bloggers be considered journalists? Sure, it’s possible, why not? Credentials aren’t required online to become a great writer or thinker in my opinion. Why pay for a newspaper to read the daily news when it can be found for free on the internet? According to the San Francisco Chronicle, newspaper readership continues to decline due to the internet and newspapers have had a hard time convincing internet users that newspapers are the most reliable source for information.
Many manufacturing jobs are going away due to outsourcing of unskilled labor. The service industry is where America’s jobs seem to be headed. If we aren’t careful with the internet, many jobs could potentially be lost due to computers and the internet. The internet will continue to be a good thing as long as its growth is monitored.
References
Moyers, Bill. (2003, August 29). PBS Now. Politics and Economy: Foreign Service. Retrieved April 22, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/jobflight.html
Richmond Times Dispatch. (2006, December 7). More retailers offering online customer reviews. Retrieved April 22, 2007 from http://web.lexis-nexis.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/universe/
Said, Carolyn. (2006, October 31). The San Francisco Chronicle. Fewer readers of papers; Circulation drops at daily publications again nationwide. Final Edition. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from http://web.lexis-nexis.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/universe/
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Opposition to Net Neutrality was Inevitable
The question of whether the absence of net neutrality is better for the United States can only be tested one way; to try it out. Net neutrality is turning into a highly debated topic of big business versus small business. What is better for America? Is it wrong for Wal-Mart’s to take over small businesses? No one truly knows the answer, which is why there is only one way to find out as stated previously.
The opposition to net neutrality was inevitable. Wherever there is an opportunity to make money, businesses will try to capitalize, especially big businesses. The internet has lead to overwhelming innovation especially economically speaking starting in the late 1990’s. These innovations, which have taken on the monster called “copyright,” have obviously taken money away from big business. Finally the big businesses fight back. They may have the resources, but they sure don’t have the man power. The majority of the U.S. public backs small businesses over big businesses as we have seen countless times in political speeches representing the middle class. In order for the opponents of net neutrality to achieve success in eliminating it, they must go through the politicians in all fifty states. As we all know the politicians usually side with the citizens, which is why opponents of net neutrality have a big fight ahead of them.
Those who oppose net neutrality are the big phone and cable communication companies, who offer internet services to customers for a monthly fee. They argue that media files such as videos on google and yahoo clog up the information super highway known as the internet. This obviously can lead to viruses, unwanted spam and so on, which causes slower internet access for large companies. The communication companies argue that they built and ran these network lines so they should have the right to control the internet. Their right would be to make more money by offering those companies who can pay the most to have greater internet access and speed over a typical household consumer. This would obviously give an enormous advantage to large companies over small businesses. So the question that most of the United States would like truthfully answered is are the big businesses opposed to net neutrality because of viruses and spam or are they really in it for more money?
The proponents of net neutrality argue that equal access to the internet for all is what has lead to so much innovation and creativity. Without equal access, freedoms and innovation are obviously limited. Proponents argue the reason large communication companies want to eliminate net neutrality is so they can eliminate their competition; and they can do this because they will have control over the internet. They will function as internet police controlling what information you can view or through which service you can view it. Sadly, it’s all about money, which unfortunately isn’t a new concept in the business world, which is why I stated previously that this whole scenario was inevitable. Democratic representative Louise Slaughter is a strong advocate of net neutrality and states (on the bill against net neutrality) “it is a bill written by and for a limited number of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also they can make even more money and the American people will pay the price. This bill will limit online opportunities.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJ3zcmPUvRo&mode=related&search=
As for my opinion, I side with net neutrality because laws put into place to oppose net neutrality will only benefit the few. Although, I feel that the reasons for opposition to net neutrality provided by large communication companies is not very insightful. I would like to hear more reasoning behind this and specific examples of negative scenarios that are possible if net neutrality continues. I personally think that without net neutrality, the internet won’t be as interactive as it is today. There won’t be any more web 2.0. This is a way for people in power to remove their threats and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The more people become aware of net neutrality, the better chance we have to fight this in congress.
The opposition to net neutrality was inevitable. Wherever there is an opportunity to make money, businesses will try to capitalize, especially big businesses. The internet has lead to overwhelming innovation especially economically speaking starting in the late 1990’s. These innovations, which have taken on the monster called “copyright,” have obviously taken money away from big business. Finally the big businesses fight back. They may have the resources, but they sure don’t have the man power. The majority of the U.S. public backs small businesses over big businesses as we have seen countless times in political speeches representing the middle class. In order for the opponents of net neutrality to achieve success in eliminating it, they must go through the politicians in all fifty states. As we all know the politicians usually side with the citizens, which is why opponents of net neutrality have a big fight ahead of them.
Those who oppose net neutrality are the big phone and cable communication companies, who offer internet services to customers for a monthly fee. They argue that media files such as videos on google and yahoo clog up the information super highway known as the internet. This obviously can lead to viruses, unwanted spam and so on, which causes slower internet access for large companies. The communication companies argue that they built and ran these network lines so they should have the right to control the internet. Their right would be to make more money by offering those companies who can pay the most to have greater internet access and speed over a typical household consumer. This would obviously give an enormous advantage to large companies over small businesses. So the question that most of the United States would like truthfully answered is are the big businesses opposed to net neutrality because of viruses and spam or are they really in it for more money?
The proponents of net neutrality argue that equal access to the internet for all is what has lead to so much innovation and creativity. Without equal access, freedoms and innovation are obviously limited. Proponents argue the reason large communication companies want to eliminate net neutrality is so they can eliminate their competition; and they can do this because they will have control over the internet. They will function as internet police controlling what information you can view or through which service you can view it. Sadly, it’s all about money, which unfortunately isn’t a new concept in the business world, which is why I stated previously that this whole scenario was inevitable. Democratic representative Louise Slaughter is a strong advocate of net neutrality and states (on the bill against net neutrality) “it is a bill written by and for a limited number of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also they can make even more money and the American people will pay the price. This bill will limit online opportunities.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJ3zcmPUvRo&mode=related&search=
As for my opinion, I side with net neutrality because laws put into place to oppose net neutrality will only benefit the few. Although, I feel that the reasons for opposition to net neutrality provided by large communication companies is not very insightful. I would like to hear more reasoning behind this and specific examples of negative scenarios that are possible if net neutrality continues. I personally think that without net neutrality, the internet won’t be as interactive as it is today. There won’t be any more web 2.0. This is a way for people in power to remove their threats and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The more people become aware of net neutrality, the better chance we have to fight this in congress.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Addiction of Living Without Consequence in Online Virtual Worlds.
When I first read my assignment for my internet-based communication class, I was stunned to say the least. I am not an online gamer and I felt that this assignment would take me days to complete since I have no prior knowledge on World of Warcraft and Second Life. I began thinking of my other classmates and how those who are not as computer literate as me could possibly complete this assignment. So I gave it a try and created an account on Second Life. As many of my other classmates I’m sure, I was completely lost; so I turned to Wikipedia, which usually answers my questions. When I read that people actually make real money creating items within this virtual world based on their computer technical skills, I immediately knew why my professor gave the class this assignment. Once again, the internet has been used to create another innovation which stretches our imaginations. What will they think of next?
I have heard of World of Warcraft before, which is supposedly very addicting among gamers to say the least. I asked my neighbor who is in high school how often he plays and he said to me “at least four hours a day”! How could this be? What seems to be the motivating factor in the popularity of these online role playing games is communication. In order to successfully play the game, you must interact and talk to other real people, which means there is no pre-determined effect, just like in real life. This helps people live out their own fantasy life and pretend to be something they are not. In fact, I don’t think the creators of Second Life could have come up with a better name because you are essentially living a second life. You can make friends and enemies, join groups, sell items, buy land and so on in these online role playing games.
What sets Second Life apart from World of Warcraft is the use of real money and that there is no physical competition among players. The use of real money is the perfect ingredient to encourage computer literate individuals to contribute to the game. Instead of paying computer programmers to develop the game, you make it free for all to contribute. This idea of open source software has become very popular among internet users as a way to challenge expensive fees that would normally be involved, like in World of Warcraft. Although Second Life isn’t as sophisticated graphically as other online role playing games, it could eventually become so.
It is true that in order to take full advantage of Second Life, you must pay around $72 per year, which enables you to purchase upgrades like a car, land, or clothes for example. In fact some people can make thousands of dollars off their own creation and give it a type of copyright so that you are the only one who can profit from it.
In order to play World of Warcraft, there is a fee, which for a limited time gives you access to everything the game has to offer. Real money is not being put into the virtual world in this game; it is being put into the hands of the game developers. Putting money into the virtual world can raise certain problems, like taxing, according to Wikipedia. People are obviously profiting from this game and it is supposed to be taxed, but how?
The lack of consequence in these role playing games stimulates an addiction among many gamers. For a little fee, you can have everything you have ever dreamed of. With the increasing popularity of these online games comes more innovation and realism. If there is money to be made with these games, then computer programmers will create. I believe more realism will produce even more popularity among these games.
I have heard of World of Warcraft before, which is supposedly very addicting among gamers to say the least. I asked my neighbor who is in high school how often he plays and he said to me “at least four hours a day”! How could this be? What seems to be the motivating factor in the popularity of these online role playing games is communication. In order to successfully play the game, you must interact and talk to other real people, which means there is no pre-determined effect, just like in real life. This helps people live out their own fantasy life and pretend to be something they are not. In fact, I don’t think the creators of Second Life could have come up with a better name because you are essentially living a second life. You can make friends and enemies, join groups, sell items, buy land and so on in these online role playing games.
What sets Second Life apart from World of Warcraft is the use of real money and that there is no physical competition among players. The use of real money is the perfect ingredient to encourage computer literate individuals to contribute to the game. Instead of paying computer programmers to develop the game, you make it free for all to contribute. This idea of open source software has become very popular among internet users as a way to challenge expensive fees that would normally be involved, like in World of Warcraft. Although Second Life isn’t as sophisticated graphically as other online role playing games, it could eventually become so.
It is true that in order to take full advantage of Second Life, you must pay around $72 per year, which enables you to purchase upgrades like a car, land, or clothes for example. In fact some people can make thousands of dollars off their own creation and give it a type of copyright so that you are the only one who can profit from it.
In order to play World of Warcraft, there is a fee, which for a limited time gives you access to everything the game has to offer. Real money is not being put into the virtual world in this game; it is being put into the hands of the game developers. Putting money into the virtual world can raise certain problems, like taxing, according to Wikipedia. People are obviously profiting from this game and it is supposed to be taxed, but how?
The lack of consequence in these role playing games stimulates an addiction among many gamers. For a little fee, you can have everything you have ever dreamed of. With the increasing popularity of these online games comes more innovation and realism. If there is money to be made with these games, then computer programmers will create. I believe more realism will produce even more popularity among these games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
