A speech by Reed Hunt, Pres. Clintons’s new FCC director,
indicated that the nature of the computer internet may soon change. It
may be taken over by the Bell Telephone Companies and Cable Industries who
will improve it by changing it over to fiber optics. This will in some
ways improve the medium, but being under the control of commerical
interests, it will cost to talk long distance, Mr. Hundt said.
The new technology will make interactive TV possible and there
could soon be as many as 666 cable channels on your TV! It will merge the
computer network, telephone and television into one entity.
It seems to me interactive TV can be used as a marvelous
communications tool or it can be a very destructive tool in the hands of
advertisers.
"Interactive TV is something we want to look at before its too late," said
Dr. Kathryn Montgomery, co-director of the Center for Media Education, a
television historian, author and former professor at University of Cali.
in Los Angeles.
Do we want this new technology to be a commercial interest? If
people with vested interests get in control of this technology, it is not
likely to be used to its fullest potential to move the country forward.
If the government controls the technology as opposed to
businesses who have demonstated vested interests, there will be checks and
balances. The gov. is made up of people of opposing views that will
ensure that both sides get access to the technology. If it is controlled
by big businesses as TV is now, then no social democrat (left of center)
will ever get to participate in debates and so forth.
In the last election, 12 people were running for president. But
Hollywood only let three people participate in the debates! They only let
right wing candidates – the ones that get campaign funds from business –
that protect the interests of business (some more so than others),
inviolation of the Communication Act (Is is section 312 or is it section
315)?
Any social democrat is not going to get one penny of money from
businesses, their message will not be carried by any newspaper since they
are right wing or right of center (as in most nations).
In Canada, one candidate for president, a liberal, used the
computer internet to carry his message daily.
Interactive TV will enable us to have a teacher in Montana teach
violin or a foreign language or a character lesson to children in Georgia.
The children can respond with a hand held device that will tell them if
their answer is wrong or not.
We can visit classes in China or classes in Sweden and sing songs
together!!!
Its great! Unless its in the hands of big business.
In article <2u2aq9$…@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
abird…@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (abirdson) writes:
> A speech by Reed Hunt, Pres. Clintons’s new FCC director,
> indicated that the nature of the computer internet may soon change. It
> may be taken over by the Bell Telephone Companies and Cable Industries
who
> will improve it by changing it over to fiber optics. This will in some
> ways improve the medium, but being under the control of commerical
> interests, it will cost to talk long distance, Mr. Hundt said.
> The new technology will make interactive TV possible and there
> could soon be as many as 666 cable channels on your TV! It will merge
the
> computer network, telephone and television into one entity.
> It seems to me interactive TV can be used as a marvelous
> communications tool or it can be a very destructive tool in the hands of
> advertisers.
> "Interactive TV is something we want to look at before its too late,"
said
> Dr. Kathryn Montgomery, co-director of the Center for Media Education, a
> television historian, author and former professor at University of
Cali.
> in Los Angeles.
> Do we want this new technology to be a commercial interest? If
> people with vested interests get in control of this technology, it is
not
> likely to be used to its fullest potential to move the country forward.
> If the government controls the technology as opposed to
> businesses who have demonstated vested interests, there will be checks
and
> balances. The gov. is made up of people of opposing views that will
> ensure that both sides get access to the technology. If it is
controlled
> by big businesses as TV is now, then no social democrat (left of
center)
> will ever get to participate in debates and so forth.
> In the last election, 12 people were running for president. But
> Hollywood only let three people participate in the debates! They only
let
> right wing candidates – the ones that get campaign funds from business –
> that protect the interests of business (some more so than others),
> inviolation of the Communication Act (Is is section 312 or is it section
> 315)?
> Any social democrat is not going to get one penny of money from
> businesses, their message will not be carried by any newspaper since
they
> are right wing or right of center (as in most nations).
Here I’m speaking of the newspapers being right wing, not the social
democrats.