Sprint/T-Mobile: Rumors and Speculation

A few months ago, Mr. Son of SoftBank, owner of Sprint, went before the US government to give his proposal on why he should be allowed to acquire T-Mobile.  He pointed out the fact that Americans pay considerably more for considerably less data than customers in other countries.  He then claimed that he wanted to initiate a price war with AT&T and Verizon, but that he needed a larger infrastructure to do so.  Whether or not he meant what he said, the word hit the news on the Internet that Deutsche Telekom, majority stakeholder of T-Mobile, said that they would agree to the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile.

Normally, I am totally against the idea of major IP's merging when it happens in an industry where there are so few of them, thereby giving us as consumers even fewer choices than we previously had.  However, I feel like I want to see this possible merger in a more positive light.  T-Mobile has been making some impressive growth since ditching their traditional contract plans in favor of a month-to-month setup.  Merging with Sprint could help both companies, and it certainly would not hurt those of us who are customers of MVNO Sprint re-sellers (I am a happy customer of Ting Wireless); having access to an even larger network than before, and only paying a fraction of the cost of the major carriers would be awesome.  On the other hand, it's entirely possible that, if the merger were allowed to happen, that contracts with MVNO's would be redrawn, not to mention the possibility that Mr. Son might not hold up his end of the bargain to start a price war.

I love the idea of competition between large companies, because that is when we, the consumers, win.  Cell phone plans cost entirely too much, and now Verizon and AT&T have initiated new plans that allow people to get a different phone before their contracts are up, but at an even greater cost; designed to take advantage of customers that do not read the fine print before handing over their cash, in my opinion.

So far, there is no official word on whether or not this deal will even happen, just that the T-Mobile majority stakeholders would be okay with it.  I will be waiting to see what happens next.

On the Potential YouTube/Twitch Merger

The news that YouTube is attempting to acquire Twitch surprised me when I heard, and gave me some concern.  Twitch is a site for those who want to watch video game related content only; no other videos are allowed on the site.  People do game play videos with commentary and live streams; there are also gaming tournaments (E-Sports) that can be viewed on Twitch.  These videos often contain 2 parts:  footage of a game being played, from an IP that is not owned by the person making the video, and music, which is usually under copyright protection as well.  Regardless, Twitch has been able to operate unimpeded.  I do not know why, but I am happy about it, and I think the Internet is a better place for it.

YouTube has not been as kind to its content producers.  One can find a video for anything on YouTube, from entertainment to education; this is certainly a strong point.  However, in regards to gaming videos, and those who make a living off of said videos, YouTube still has room to grow.  YouTube utilizes a system called ContentID, and it is their way of washing their hands of any involvement in copyright issues.  The recent attack on many content produces that use game footage and music in their videos showed just how blind the system is, as videos were taken down by parties that did not actually have any right to the material. In some cases, that original copyright holders had already given the content producers permission to use said material.

If YouTube does acquire Twitch, I do not see how Twitch's content producers can continue to enjoy the freedom that they have.  Google has no interest in going to court to defend those that use their service to make content for a living, or just for shear creative expression.  I guess we will just have to see how things play out.

Open the Internets!

The recent new about Tom Wheeler's proposal for new rules regarding net neutrality has been the cause for many a heated discussion on forums, in comments, and on social media sites; and I do not blame them.  The Internet, since it became open to the public, has been a huge sandbox; a place for unlimited potential.  It has closed the gap between the corporate world and the consumer, as people are able to voice their opinions and give feedback to producers of goods in a way that has never been possible before.  The Internet has been a place where creativity can flourish, as creators of music, video, and art no longer require a middle man to get their medium of choice to the masses.  It has also been a place for anyone with the desire to start their own business to realize that dream; the Internet can be used to expand a business's reach to customers they would not have otherwise, or run a small business from one's own home.

Internet access has never been amazing in our country.  If you live in any of the larger metropolitan areas, or the surrounding suburbs, in our nation, you have had the pleasure of broadband connections and wireless access, assuming you can afford it.  However, there are still large swaths of the country that have only dial-up as an option, though there are some satellite services out there; again, if you can afford it.  Those of us with broadband choices are left with few of them, and the fear around this proposal by Mr. Wheeler has people worried that those few companies will control how we access what and from what device.

Wheeler's proposal says that ISP's will be held accountable for ensuring customers are getting the speeds they are paying for, which is great, but it also seems to provide said ISP's with the ability to create "fast lanes" on the Internet by charging content providers more money in order to distribute their content at the speeds that they currently do.  This will, of course, lead to more expensive services from those content providers, and with so few choices, we as consumers still loose.

The FCC has voted on going forward with the proposal as it stands, so far, and is open for comment by one and all.  Just do a Google search for "net neutrality", and you will find a way to let your voice be heard.

Learning to Deal with an Old Problem in a New Way.

As long as there has been an instinctual fear of those deemed weak and kids being raised by abusive parents, there has been a problem with bullying.  Before the rise of the Internet, it was something that only happened in person, and was considerably easier to deal with.  Whether you told someone about it, decided to fight back, or simply went somewhere that the bully could not follow, the end result was the same:  the bullying stopped.

Today, the problem of bullying still exists, but its method of delivery has changed.  Bullying online, or cyber-bullying, can now take place on social network sites, making it much harder to get away from a bully.  The only real way to do so is to go offline, but in a world where almost everyone is connected online, that option does not seem very realistic.

The story of Amanda Todd brought the most attention to the damage cyber-bullying and cyber stalking can do to a person, and it is easy to understand why.  After watching her YouTube video, I felt terrible for her.  I also found myself wondering why her situation had been allowed to happen in the first place, and why nothing was done about it.  It is because of those feelings that I understand why adults react the way they do when they believe they have identified a case of cyber-bullying.  It is a “knee-jerk” reaction, born out of a desire to prevent a repeat of Amanda Todd’s story; but the problem with such reactions is that they are usually fueled by emotion, and without much thought put in to actions being taken in response.

There are two sides to every story, and it is no different with cyber-bullying.  The other side could be that the bully in question comes from a rough home, and they are taking out their anger and frustration on others.  Punishing a kid in this situation only makes the problem worse; a conversation needs to be had, here, not blind retribution; this can be said for all forms of bullying.

Another problem of the quick, emotional reaction without understanding is that it can make problems worse for the one being bullied.  The young person in question is already receiving plenty of unwanted attention; if they fear that telling an adult will result in the problem being made even more public, thereby bringing more attention to the problem, they might not say anything at all.  This does not mean that the problem is all on the one being bullied, and that the bully should go unpunished.  It means that, like most things, some moderation is called for.

We have to open channels of communication and teach young people how to handle online bullies just like we have to teach them to handle bullies in person.  A "zero-tolerance" policy might come from noble aspirations, but it is only a temporary fix.  It does not actually solve the problem, and the person being bullied is not learning any life skills; skills that they will need to survive out in the real world, when they are no longer under the shelter of their parents.

Social Media: Your Audience

Social media always seems to be the point of one controversy or another.  None of these services were around until I was already out of the house and in Power School for the Navy; I remember being introduced to each one as they became available to the public and thinking that they were mildly interesting, at best.  To me, they seemed to be a great way to keep in contact with people that you know that you might not live remotely close to anymore.  I have had a few fellow Nukes contact me over Facebook, asking me if I knew of any available jobs, and I have pitched my first job out of the Navy to them; if they were interested, I have forwarded their resumes on to the appropriate supervisors and managers.

Now, social media is huge.  Kids today are growing up with a smartphone in hand, and some are given a Facebook account as soon as they are born.  Because of the popularity of these services, people of all ages are using them now.  As people continue to get connected, they are, of course, going to draw attention from other sources.  Advertisers are buying ad space on social media sites because there are more and more eyeballs there, and now companies and colleges are looking to said sites to vet potential recruits.

Should this be allowed?  That question is being asked more often, and there are some that believe there should be a statute of limitations on who can see what on a given online profile.  Lori Andrews argues that we need to go as far as having an actual Constitution drawn up.

I can see both sides of this argument.  Companies and private colleges are just that:  private.  No one is entitled to a job or enrollment with either establishment, and they have a right to know who they are actually recruiting.  There is really nothing to stop a person from lying on their resume/application, and companies in particular have both a culture and a public image to maintain.  On the other hand, people make bad decisions all the time; this does not make them bad people.  These decisions can often involve what people decide to share online.  People are “at home” when posting things online, and therefore do not always think about who their potential audience might be.

I feel that the easiest solution is to control one’s own profiles.  Having a profile using a one’s actual name and nothing but accomplishments and family connections on the wall might actually assist in getting hired.  If you just have to have a wall full of pictures of yourself setting a record for the most keg stands performed in one night, consider using a different online handle.