Another way to look at PBS Frontline's Digital Nation documentary.

I just finished watching PBS' Digital Nation documentary. If you haven't seen it, you can do so here. I have mixed feelings on many of the subjects covered over the lengthy documentary. I can't help but feel like they missed the boat on a few issues. Producer Rachel Dretzin is approaching the entire subject from what I can only conclude is a slightly ignorant position. Her statement on reasoning for creating the documentary is in itself a rather misguided rational.

And I quote:

"I'm amazed at the things my kids are able to do online, but I'm also a little bit panicked when I realize that no one seems to know where all this technology is taking us, or its long-term effects,"

When has anybody ever known the real long-term effects of anything? The fear of the negative side effects of technology and the lack of thought to their implications is ludicrous. Did we know what would happen when we created the printing press? Did the creators of radio take into account the social and political fallout that came with the ability to instantly broadcast a voice t

o millions simultaneously? The same goes with any technological innovation. Just because Mrs. Dretzin grew up with the radio doesn't mean that the negative aspects of its existence are less than that of the internet. We really have no way of predicting any side-effects as humans become more connected. We don't know how it's going to effect the way we interact and the way we learn. All we can really take comfort in knowing is that things are going to change and that the way you grew up was not any better or worse than the way your kids are growing up today.

There was a large portion of the documentary dedicated to how technology is effecting education. There were two sides to the argument presented. There were teachers who felt as though technology is creating a generation of limited attention spans and greater stupidity. On the other side there were those of the opinion that technology can be used to engage students on a level that meets their needs. They missed an important alternate argument. I feel as though technology, mainly personal computers and the internet, has made schools completely obsolete. Why must a child go to school in a world where knowledge is free and available to all online? Take, for example, Sherry Turkle, an MIT professor who is quoted as saying "I teach the most brilliant students in the world, but they have done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid and believing that a multitasking learning environment will serve their best purposes. There are just some things that are not amenable to being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things." There is a bit of Freudian-ish misunderstanding in this quote. While she blames students for not paying attention to her in the classroom, she is really in deep fear that her job is at risk. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the really intelligent students would be better off dropping out of school and teaching themselves all they need to know online and in libraries. It doesn't matter if you're a "Digital Native" or not, the need to attend lectures and write exams is no longer the best way of gaining knowledge.

I'm also slightly upset at the idea of "Digital Native". The documentary takes the point of view that anyone born into a world of technology is automatically an expert on how computers work. Take my word when I say that most people of my own age or younger have no idea how computers or the internet actually functions. In fact, just because they have a basic understanding of how to navigate a user interface doesn't mean that these kids have any idea of what's going on under the hood. There is still a large gap in those who are casual users of technology and the 'computer geeks' that really know how and why these things work the way they do. The only thing that separates a young "digital native" and and older "digital immigrant" is fear of the new. In fact the clear dividing line between those who feel tech is great and those who fear its going to bring about the end of mankind is no different than the parents who feared that rock and roll music was the manifestation of the devil. Old folks just can't handle change. It's really that simple.

The fear of technology is amplified when dealing with virtual reality. The notion that the human mind finds virtual information just as satisfying as the so called "real-world" is something that comes as shocking to those who have spent their entire lives feeling confident in understanding the difference between what is real and what is not. They are often clueless to just how much of our perception of the world is in itself artificial. The information picked up by our eyes and ears forms the 'real world' as we know it. Our perception of the 'real world' is actually quite limited and biased. In fact, it can be said that our brains create a sort of virtual reality in our minds that we interpret as being real. If we can simulate this to such an extent that our minds can't really tell the difference, then what makes the 'real world' any more 'real' then the virtual one? You don't have to look any further than the Matrix to see an examination of this principle. Let's face it, the 'real world' is really a piece of garbage. Can you really blame those who are content to live their lives in much more satisfying 'virtual' one? I'd like to thank Ray Maxwell, who sparked my thinking in this area.

There are downsides to all these new technologies, but the Digital Nation documentary skipped over the biggest problem altogether. There is far too much corporate commercial control over the internet. In some areas of the world, corrupted dictatorships have highjacked how these tools are being used. The tools that have been created are often being bent and shaped to influence people, young and old, to accept unconditionally the bottom line presented by a government or a company. I fear that it's the media, in the form of TV and radio, that is more responsible for the short attention spans and addicted youth than the internet itself. Looking at the net from a pure technological point of view suggests that there is nothing stopping the freedom of knowledge to be shared between all mankind. If it wasn't for media or governmental control the internet could easily make us all as intelligent and well informed as those with privileged access to higher education. There is a bit of utopian-optimism in this line of thought, but I see no reason why the internet shouldn't level the playing field for all humanity. Those in power see the technology as something that should be used to ensure that the lines of control are kept in check. I see technology as a means in which a poor child in Africa can become just as educated as the MIT prof who fears for her job. Money is no longer required to access information. Information is free. Once those who are lower down in the social order realize this, then the rich bourgeois who continue to control the world are in deep trouble.

Free Unlimited Bandwidth Inevitable?

Well the Olympics have been dominating the headlines here in Canada, and while I can't say to have been enjoying the coverage offered by CTV (read all about it on my angry rage-filled media blog) there is an interesting technology story to emerge from the games that I don't feel is getting the attention it deserves. The online streaming video offered on CTV's website has been of unprecedented quality. The simultaneous streaming of every live event, coupled with instant on-demand availability of previously aired material all in fairly good high definition quality is unprecedented. The scale of the CTV/Rogers/Bell joint venture to stream the games online is probably a first in Canadian history. While NBC's website is geographically blocked here in Canada, I understand that they have similar content available.

I spend quite a bit of time ranting on my media blog on just how irrelevant the internet has made TV and radio (and print newspapers too). The choice and quality of what has been available on cable and satellite is finally being surpassed by the internet. But why now? The power of personal computers has increased so much in the last few years that pretty much everyone finally has the processing power able to handle the video quality. Internet providers have also been (slowly) updating their network infrastructure to increase the bandwidth and speed capabilities. Pushing large amounts of data all over the world is now quick and easy. Why then are cable and phone companies charging more and more for your monthly internet? It's a sad trend that simply can't continue.

The privately owned nature of telecommunication companies in North America dictates that they have to regularly increase profits to satisfy share holders. With every new routing centre and mile of fibre-optic cable they lay down, the capacity of the entire network is increased. This means less congestion and higher speeds. It also means that the monetary value of what users are paying for should decrease. Instead of passing down savings to customers, the telcos have simply created an artificial metering system to create a false scarcity in order to keep prices on the rise. Those monthly bandwidth caps that have been introduced into your monthly bill are somewhat insincere.

It would take a quite some time to explain exactly how the internet works, so instead I'll provide this link for some background information. By creating monthly caps in how much a user can upload and download, it creates the sense that there is some sort of pool of internet that is drying up. If you suck too much out of the pool there won't be any internet left. This simply isn't how it works. Internet service providers don't pay to fill up the 'internet pool' every month. Instead, their costs consists of access to other networks and infrastructure repairs. The only limit the network has is that it has a limit to how many simultaneous connections it can route at a time. That's why you may notice things moving slightly slower during 'prime time' hours because there are too many simultaneous users accessing the same network at the same time.

What makes the Olympics interesting, at least in Canada, is that the two companies who own the majority of the network here, Bell and Rogers, are both very involved in the games. They don't have to pay a thing to get that streaming content from their servers to your computers. Youtube, since it is so heavily used, has deals with ISPs all over the world to allow for free passages across their networks. As such, Youtube's bandwidth costs, despite the insane amount of streaming video they provide, are rather low.

As the capacity of networks around the world increase, there will be less and less congestion. Data will be free to travel anywhere instantaneously without fear of slowing down or being costly to ISPs. In countries where the government takes the majority of the responsibility in the internet's infrastructure, such as Sweden and South Korea, users pay a fraction of what we pay to access the internet and have much faster speeds then we could ever imagine here in North America. Our Achilles Heal appears to be the private institutions that use selling access to the internet as a profit making business. They rather keep things as they are so they have reason to raise prices and keep users away from the beset the world wide web has to offer. Things are going to have to change.

And they just might. Google has announced that they're going to start becoming an Internet Service Provider to some cities in The States. They plan on offering blazing fast connections at comparatively little cost. The competition may be exactly what's needed to break up the telecommunications monopolies south of the border. Up here in Canada? Well, it's Bell and Rogers (and a little Telus) and that's it. We are lagging behind the world and are about the face the consequences. As some countries are starting to see always fast and absurdly cheap access to the internet, they will be able to innovate and take advantage of all the benefits at their disposal. Canadians will continue to break the bank and still be lagging behind. The internet is such a disruptive force that the media empires of North America (they who control most of our media and access to the internet) are interested in limiting our access to it.

The fact of the matter is the internet will one day be an almost entirely free resource. It is not like water and electricity in that it can become scarce and expensive. Aside from maintenance costs, the internet will never run out and always be available. The dawning of free unlimited bandwidth is within our sights. Will be ready for it?

The Toronto Transit Commission Vs. Technology

This video, and many others like it, are stirring up quite the controversy here in Canada. What you are seeing is a driver on Toronto's TTC stopping his bus and going off to grab a coffee at a local doughnut shop. For anyone who has ridden the TTC before, this is hardly unusual. What is unusual is the fact that it was recorded by a passenger and posted on YouTube for the entire world to see. While the city of Toronto argues over the rights of transit operators caught in the act, I thought it might be interesting to examine the larger question of how technology is empowering civilians to report and capture proof of this sort of occurrence.

Everyone has a camera in their pocket. In a world where every cell phone has a built-in camera, and everyone seems to have a cell phone, it's now possible for anyone to capture spontaneous events at any random time. You don't need to have a photographer with a camera set-up to catch a photo like this anymore:


The debate ranging in Toronto is pitting the TTC ridership (who are now paying $3 per fare) against the workers who are caught taking a break or napping on the job. As a long time rider of the TTC myself, I can assure you that this behaviour is hardly new. There have been many a connecting bus transfer missed because a driver happened to take a 10 minute coffee break en-route. Why all the media attention all of the sudden? It has never been easier for people to take, post and discover videos and pictures of this nature. While previously you would be left with a mere story from a passenger about how the driver left a bus unattended to grab a bite to eat, now you have full-on video proof. Not only do these videos make the rounds online, but news agencies now have footage to use in a story that otherwise would have lacked any evidence. The fact is, operations like the TTC will have to come to terms with kind this surveillance and it's not going away.

The proliferation of personal pocket cameras coinciding with the rise of the internet has initiated a huge shift in how businesses are going to have to run. The only way for the TTC to put a stop to these videos and pictures is to make sure they aren't doing anything incriminating while at work. Period. The same goes for just about anyone who does anything in the public space. If you are out and about and are doing something you shouldn't be doing, you're going to get caught. Welcome to the year 2010. The power is shifting from the operators of services and business to the common folks who use them. This goes for politicians, retail employees and corporate CEOs as much as it does the works of Toronto's Transit Commission.

While video surveillance isn't anything new, (just ask the people of London) the video is now being captured by individuals and not by a state agency. This isn't Big Brother, this is thousands of little brothers and sisters.

TTC union members have, apparently, formed a Facebook group and are planning on fighting back against the negative reaction that has come their way recently. They are fighting a battle already lost. As long as people have access to the freedom of communication that is the internet and as long as cell phone manufacturers continue to put better cameras into their devices, the TTC is going to have to pay more attention to their behaviour while at work. The price might seem steep to the folks who are used to getting away with this sort of thing, but the longterm upside is huge to the public at large. We can expect to see an improvement in all areas of service, public or private, as we continue to share and expose these events online.

It isn't all bad for the TTC union. In fact, the frequent complaints that they've had of being abused by riders will more frequently come with video evidence. They too may experience long term benefits to this new era of technology. While they're feeling the pressure right now, it would serve them greatly to look at the bigger picture.

iPad? iPad?!!?!?! sigh... iPad.

Shiny. Very very shiny. Slim. Slick. Thinner than an anorexic model. It's damn cool and everybody is going to want one.

But is it really that next step in technological innovation that I've been lusting for? Well...maybe.

I'm not going to get into the details of the tech behind the thing. Read all about it here, here, here and of course here. It's fast and slim and it will be able to do everything your iPhone does. Except make phone calls. Basically, if you are familiar with the iPod touch and can imagine it being...bigger, well that's basically it.

We are at a strange point in the history of our technological innovations. This device is pretty much a laptop alternative. The interface is different. It is a new way of interacting with a computer. It is, however, the same way we interact we our phones. I'm not trying to downplay what Apple has done here. No, not at all. They have made a tablet-type computer that people will actually want. This may be end of the mouse and keyboard. This isn't, however, a revolution in the bigger picture of things. Uh...what the heck am I talking about?

The iPhone was a revolution. This was the first time we could bring a computer and the internet with us wherever we go, in our pockets. It also may have been the first touch screen based interface that wasn't a pain to use. The iPad (I still can't believe that's the name) is an evolutionary product in how we use the personal computer. It isn't a revolution. I was hoping for a new way of using a computer. A real revolution. I think, alas, my hopes may have been misplaced. Allow me to explain.

I started this little bloggy blog blog off with a statement of just how far technology has come in the last decade. We've actually seen such a mind-boggling increase in processing power and reduction in hardware size that we've literally gone from big beige box to the iPad in a decade. It is a real insane progression. Just look at these two computers:

These two machines are just over a decade apart from each other. While the iPad isn't being sold as a full desktop computer, as far as its technological capabilities are concerned, it blows that old bulgy iMac out of the water. It's much cheaper to purchase new then that old machine was, and it is insanely more powerful. Just take a minute and think about it. Never before in human history have we seen such a gigantic step forward in technology in such a short period of time. In the last ten years we have seen more advancements than any of our ancestors have seen in their entire lifetime. Kinda mind blowing isn't it?

But what does it mean? We have the world of technology at our feet. We can use these machines to essentially replace our brains. We can create any sort of media instantaneously. The barrier for entry to be a content producer and innovator has never been lower. And yet, we are a world that still exists in turmoil. We have war and violence and hate and mistrust between all peoples on the planet. What I'm saying is...well...technology hasn't helped fix the world. Was it ever going to? I don't know. Maybe. You'd think that with our ability to collaborate and connect globally, we may be in slightly better shape than we are. Whats the problem? Have I set my expectations too high? Yes, yes I have.

So maybe I should be glad that today's announcement by Apple wasn't the reinvention that I was hoping it would be. Maybe the iPad and the many clones that we'll see coming out over the next couple years will be a great place to rest for a while. Maybe we need to slow down the speed of technological innovation and see what we can do with what we have. Let's take a glimpse at the present and stop trying to see the future. We're here. The future is here right now. The iPad, if nothing else, is something that really and truly feels like the future. Just look at the thing. Damn. Pretty crazy.

Oh yeah, you're going to be seeing this video quite a bit over the next few weeks:

How do you use the internet. Has it replaced your brain yet?

What's my name? Google it. Yup, that's right. I run a medutainment network. Sounds like a word I made up? Yup.

What's the capital of Canada? Toronto? Google it. Really? What's an Ottawa? Some kind of moose?

What's that funny tingly painful feeling in my chest? Google it. Wow, I'm dying and wouldn't know it without the internet.

See what I'm getting at? The internet has changed the way people use their brains. You might think of yourself as a being of two brains. One that resides in your head (the one which concerns itself with getting laid), and one that resides in your pocket (the one that actually knows stuff about things...and stuffs). The internet has completely taken us to the next level of evolutionary grandeur.

Has it really? It depends on who you ask. If you are an elderly lady or gentleman, you may be used to a world where knowing things, and thus being intelligent, revolved around the ability to cram as much useless information into your brain as humanly possible. If you could actually recall this useless information on demand (like say, knowing the capital of Canada, how obscure) then you sir (or madam) were considered smart.

Fast forward to this present day 2010: the future with lights flashing and robots making lunches etc....

What's the capital of Canada? Well I think it's Toronto but I'll have to Google it to be sure. Oh... According to Google it's actually Ottawa 45°24′N 75°40′W / 45.4, -75.667 and it was chosen by one Queen Victoria on December 31st 1857 as a central location between Upper and Lower Canada which today is actually Ontario and Quebec. Take that Grannie! Who's smart now?

Am I actually less smart because I no longer need to cram all this silly information into my head brain? Probably. But now my head brain is freer to contemplate the more important things in life (like getting laid).

You see, the internet has not only caused a quantum shift in how we consume media, or acquire music, or understand our government, or whathaveyou. The internet has literally completely changed the way we think. Use your head brain and consider the consequences. Why do we still have schools in which children spend their days trying to memorize useless facts (like the capital of Canada) when they all have computers in their pockets and can figure out these things when they actually need to know. Now they preoccupy their thoughts with more important things.....

Getting laid. Hell, that's all they think about one way or the other people. The internet ain't gonna change that.

While we joke (jest, chortle) around with this matter, it actually is a fundamental shift in everything we do. The consequences that these technological innovations have on our lives are really something that we can't even begin to comprehend. (Unless you live in 2020 and are reading this from the future and laughing at my foolishness in even considering such archaic notions while you are busy doing much more important things with your life...getting laid)

But seriously...over the coming weeks and months (years, decades and centuries too if all goes according to plan) we will ponder the implications of all these fanciful philosophical questions on this here blog. So keep reading, pretty please.

Video: Square

While the iPhone has certainly been the biggest step forward in personal computing hardware for quite some time now, it is almost as fascinating to see how third party developers have taken advantage of this new form of computer to create additional innovations. Take this video for example. Square for iPhone allows just about anybody to accept credit card payments on their (you guessed it) iPhone. While Apple has implemented a similar concept in their retail stores with iPod Touches, this will be the first product of its kind available to the public at large. The target audience here is small business, but could be used by anyone selling privately at something like a garage sale.

What do you think? The security issues are what first pop into my mind. The fact you have to hand over your iPhone in order to get the purchaser's signature is enough to make me worried of any common criminal running off with a phone full of credit card numbers. A great innovation or a dumb idea? You tell me.

Apple's Next Thing to be unveiled January 27th

CES was a dud. It was stupid. You read my rambling angry and aggressively frustrated post haven't you? I claimed that technology innovation was dead and there was nothing revealed at the yearly electronic convention that wasn't either distractingly annoying or completely superfluous. Well, tech journalists have just received the following in the mail:

Could Apple be the last hope for some sort of actual innovation in the technology world in 2010? Could this finally be the long rumoured tablet computer? The iSlate? Maybe. Who knows? Well Steve Jobs knows, but he won't tell us until January 27th. While my expectations are tempered (always are regardless of who is making the announcement) I will watch what comes out of this event and I'll be the first to tell you if this thing is another complete waste of time or the next step forward in personal computing or a dud. It has been a while since Apple unveiled the iPhone and really, despite all the copies and clones released by other companies, there really hasn't been too much of a step forward since then.