This is what I found:* Service for my home phone area was not available from either company. As I mentioned before this will end your journey on Vonage’s site. * The cost was the first thing presented on Vonage’s site, but equally easy to find in Speakeasy. * Both sites allow you to keep you current number.* The equipment was not included with a service plan from Vonage; it was included with the Speakeasy plan.           This assignment was fairly easy (although I had to do some phone number manipulation). The services need to provide more information on how exactly it works. Also they need to be upfront with the 911 factor. They may not want to stress their faults to potential buyers, but customers need to be aware of the fact that by using the service it will disable the ability for 911 operators to locate you like they can now on regular land lines. This is people’s safety and well being.  The only reason I would buy would be if I made lots of long distance calls to other countries. Right now I can use my cell for any long distance calls through out the country.   

Wow, this article explains some exciting new technology. I think that VoIP will help not only lower our home long distance calls, but also our cell phone bills. Why? Because I think that today many people use there cell phones over their home phones so they don’t have to pay those high long distance fees. This way they could use their home phones more, because they are portable as well, and have smaller, less expensive cell phone bills. This would really help out someone like me- broke and reluctant to have a home phone.

The worst part is that with a 911 call the operator would not be able to locate you. But if you made those calls on your cell phone then GPS could track you.

I disagreed with the article where is stated that a person is more likely to panic over the sound of no dial tone opposed to the loss of having an internet connection for 30 minutes. Many people rely on the internet and their e-mail. If I didn’t have a dial tine on my home phone I would use a cell phone are en a pay phone. He also said that it is expected for there to be problems with internet connections, but isn’t that the case with all technology- including telephones?   

Also, like many websites is there a high risk for “hackers” to get in on your phone call? Could they listen to private phone calls and get valuable information?

Questions : are in italics

My discussion leader topic was on the digital divide. Although there are many sub topics under this topic I chose the digital divide between school districts within the same area. My particular article was about two schools in New Jersey. One of the schools could afford to have one laptop per child where as the other school could only afford to have one computer for every eleven students. You must remember that theses students are growing up in the same area and will eventually be trying to get the same jobs and function in a society together. The question at hand was: is the second school at a greater disadvantage? The article argues that neither school has an advantage over the other.  Why? Because a computer is no more than a learning tool much like a calculator or a text book is. It goes on to say that although no matter how great our new technology becomes the basic fundamentals of education are still taught in classrooms. Fundamentals such as critical thinking, analyzing and basic mathematics. A computer may help contextualize this better for students, but the basics must be in the driver’s seat. The article concludes that it comes down to a willing student and a good teacher.  

 DISCUSSION/EXPERIENCE:

Well, I began my experience a little stressed out due to the fact that I could not open my Power Point presentation minutes before I was suppose to present. I used Power Point 2007 which is not backwards compatible to Power Point 2003. Ahh. Fortunately, I did have my article and I help my discussion with out a visual. Luckily it went well.As far as the actual educational part went, I found it really hard to find comprehensive questions. I did not want the answers to be so obvious, but at the same time I wanted the questions to have feasible answers. I feel I eventually accomplished this. The actual discussion part of the section seemed to go well for both of the groups I had. I felt that we generated a great discussion through out. I think that the topic of the digital divide is a well enough known topic that everyone had an opinion about it. But more specifically, I did my discussion on the digital divide between two school districts in New Jersey and this too carried enough knowledge that we could critically discuss it. Overall, I feel that my discussion leader experience went very well. It was not nearly as nerve racking as I made it seem. Not to mention the added stress of not having my Power Point. After it was over, I was disappointed that all of my work on the Power Point was not seen, but I was still pleased with the way things went. 

http://students.washington.edu/julied3/com300/divide.ppt

To be completely honest, the article titled above was the hardest reading for me to understand. I had to re-read entire paragraphs and still had no idea what was being discussed. There was a nice little “how to understand the terms” section, but I could not remember all of that nor was it very convenient for me to keep going back to the first page. This isn’t the traditional blog post for this course, but my professor did say that we could express our feelings on any part of the article.

The little I did get was that the author believes that universal access is a necessity and this I agree with. He mentions that the prices of the equipment to make this a possibility is far too expensive and needs to be brought down dramatically. In cases such as the study done in the
Dominican Republic this need for new technology is a must. He discusses how it has helped particularly in instances such as education and medical needs. It is expensive to send experts in particular field to third world countries, but if the information is at their fingertips this could significantly change the living standards in such povished countries.

Questions:Will having unlimited access harm countries that are already up to speed? It could improve conditions of povished countries, but in a country like
America where we are already workaholics- will it do more harm than good?Will povished countries have the will and education needed in order to help their health and living situations? 

            I though this was a very interesting article. I have never been much into politics and as the years of collage have gone by I have definitely become fonder of them and actually intend to vote for the first time. So when reading this article it made me understand the system a little better as well as in a manner that was easy to understand.

            I think that Trippi is undoubtedly a genius in politics. His use of the ideas in new technology to help organize political campaigns has proved to be unbelievably successful and if planned out right will continue to sky rocket. The internet as given politics the option to let the people come to them, which I think is great because I hate pushy politics calling and leaving flyers everywhere- on my car, in my mailbox, on my front door and handed out to me while I walk into the grocery store. I fill out one little survey and they won’t leave me alone. I find it such a waste of time, money and precious resources. So if I want to go to my candidate, let me.

            Additionally, I liked the fact that it wasn’t Trippi that made Howard Deans campaign successful through the use of the Internet, but the fact that his campaign was becoming successful through the Internet caused the need for Trippi. He was such an innovator and became the “go-to” guy. Now, as the end suggests, he just gets to relax with his feet kicked up and let the internet do the dirty work. Like finding 14 year-old Jonathan Kreiss Tompkins from Alaska to add 400+ people to your campaign, all while you sit at you desk in Washington.

“The Race of the Web Sites 2004″ from ACM Interactions by Kathy Gill

            I thought this was a very useful article. I believe that, although politicians are trying to be up to date with today’s new media outlets, they are still trying to control how we view the information provided. The simpler the site is to navigate through, the more likely a user is going to stay around. The last thing a candidate wants to do is frustrate the potential voter.

            A page in particular that a candidate wants to be sure is user friendly in the donation page. First of all, if someone is willing to hand over their money you would want this page to be easy yet effective. If it is inviting and it is clear where their money is going, the more at ease a donator will feel. If the site is complicated and unclear, one might wonder if the site is secure or get so frustrated they give up all together.

            Moreover, I think that the fact that the parties are now requiring registration just to enter their sites is a bad idea. People do not like to commit to things with out being fully informed so this pre-registration may turn away many potential voters. In addition, this also encourages people to use false information in such forms. Where as if an individual had the opportunity to make an informed decision they would most likely register with the proper information.

I think politicians are going to have to realize that the power is in the hands of the people and if they do not offer sites that are information loaded (with out hidden links or distractions) and that are easy to use voters will become frustrated. This could effect voter turn out as well as campaign donations.

Questions:

Do you think that politicians will be able to let go of their devious politician stereotype and lay out all the information for the people to make an actual informed decision?

            It is one thing to raise money to run a campaign, but with the costs being so low due to the fact that the internet is doing much of the dirty work, do you think is it right for politician campaigns to make money off of their donations?

                I think what NPR has done with podcasting a great. What I particularly like is the fact that they were tuned in on what the public wanted and went above and beyond the call of duty. This reminds me of a pervious article, “Markets are Conversations” from The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual by Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger. The authors talk about how big businesses are not listening to what the public wants and needs. He goes on to say that if a change is not made many big businesses are going to come to an end because they are still trying to control a system that the public is gaining control over. NPR was so quick and successful in their response to the publics want that they attracted a large following. But not only did they make a podcast for their show, but they brought in different area’s of topic from other talk shows, creating an even lager fan base. This was very smart and effective on their part. Now people have the convenience of staying on one sight and listening to different topics of choice.

            This suggests that our media outlets are definitely changing and as the old adage goes “if ya can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” I think that this definitely applies here because if media outlets don’t make a change to adapt better to today’s contemporary ways they are going to be left behind with the cassette tape.