Digital Delivery

In response to:
Studios and exhibitors unveil digital cinema network
After reading the L.A. Times article above think about what this type of effect an innovation like this might have on the movie industry, or maybe even more relevant, on the movie theater industry.  Is digital delivery a good thing overall or will it create difficulties for some?  Think of this in terms of the enabling, limiting, motivating, and inhibiting factors that come up with this technology.
The above article talks about the new innovation of digital and satellite delivery of movies to theaters. This is a great idea! The costs of the companies to produce movies is already so costly and expensive. This will save them thousands of dollars. To me, this will enable and motivate independent film makers to try to broadcast their films in theaters. In comparison to physical delivery, digital and satellite delivery is almost free. But.. I still have concerns.
My main concern is that although this will be cheaper, will this increase the price of movies? Will it be inhibiting to delivery companies and take away jobs? So will this innovation be limiting to particular theaters that are unable to afford the technology needed for digital delivery? Those are my concerns and questions for this new technology.
I think this will be a great thing for everyone. This way, it will shorten the time length we have to wait for a movie to “come out”. Maybe then, at this cut costs, more movies will be screened and we will get to see some films produced by smaller companies who already could barely afford to make the film, but the distribution of it was also costly for them.


In Response to:

Bill would create royalty market for broadcaster payments to

The link above discusses the issue of paying royalties to
copyright holders of music. Read it carefully to make sure you understand the
issue and then comment on whether you would be in favor of this type of law or
against it. Would this be an inhibiting or enabling factor in the radio
industry. We already have radio, of course, and probably always will. But what
type of effect might this law have on other technologies. As you read this you
need to take note at ASCAP and BMI are organizations that protect the copyright
holder. They do not, however, protect the performer. Anyway, read and


In the above article, there are discussions about paying royalties to artists by the radio stations who stream their music. This has been a debate for some while now. In case you weren’t aware, artists do not get paid for having their music played on the radio nor on any online stream. This has been an issue, because radio station is basically being paid for other artists’ music.

Immediately, I thought this would be a great idea. After reading further into the article and viewing sides from both major label aritists and independent artists, my decision did change. This would be inhibiting to radio stations AND to independent artists. For one, the idea of paid royalities, is that artists will be able to negotiate fees for having their music played. The thing is, what if they don’t like the pay? Will they then completely reject the idea and not have their music played on the particular radio station? This will hurt both the artist and radio station.

Now, independent artists are hurting, because it is argued they won’t even have the means to sit in on a negotiation conversation about royalty pay. This policy will hurt too many. Even the then, it would make it harder for online stations or radios accessed from cell phones to stream music.

In conclusion, I just believe this will make it such a complicated process to stream the music, it won’t even be worth it. In the end, artists and copyright holders have gone this long without royalty pay.. why change it now?

Hey, did you see that?!

In response to:

billboards called another distraction

The link above is about three
years old, but read it anyway and see if it still applies. It is about digital
signage on the roadways. Electronic billboards. Should there be laws to outlaw
them? Are they really distractions to motorists? What effect would banning them
have on the digital signage industry? Is banning something that may seem
dangerous the best thing to do? Don’t digital signs save paper? Give consumers
more up-to-date information? Read and comment.


In the above article, there are talks about whether digital billboards are a hazard to drivers. The article expresses a debate between hazard prevention versus marketing experts. From the comparison to cell phone usage while driving to standing billboards, there are some debate that left me in a changing mind state.

For starters, I began immediatly believing digital billboards should be banned. I thought about how distracting it would be to see flashing lights ahead and how tempting one would be to take a look. Like it was stated in the article, one can refuse to text, but you can’t refuse to see what is in front of you flashing. Advertising is just that. You see it whether you want to or not. That is the purpose. But is it so distracting to where it should be banned? There is where the argument lie in this article.

Some believed both stading billboards and digital billboards are equally as distracting. They both do catch your attention and cause you to glance in that direction. In my opinion, they should not be banned completely, but better yet, come with strict rules. I would agree they are distracting, but if there is no evidence to show they cause car crashers, who are we to refute the idea without proper premise?!

Of course the digital signage industry would fail if we were to ban them, but honestly, that is not where my point would lie. As a matter of fact, I find it to be irrelevant in the point of debate. To “seem” dangerous and to “be” dangerou are two different things. If digial billboards were proven to be dangerous in any way, then yes – ban them immediately! However, that is not the case.. yet. Then, some would say, “well should we ban them just in case?” That I am not so sure about. I figured if there were strict regualations, then we would be able to regulate the signage, so it would be less distracting as possible.

On a brighter note, digital billboards do save paper. Aren’t we trying to go GREEN? Signs are everywhere. They will grasp attention whether or not is digital. Lets take heed to a new innovative technology! Long live digital billboards!!

A Future Without TV?

In response to:

The Future of TV

We have been discussing digital TV and its various forms — digital, cable, DBS, IPTV.  The link above is to an interview with Brian Roberts from Comcast, one of the largest media companies in the country.  The interview focuses on what the networks will have to do to stay competitive in a world full of competition that is making more and more content available free to consumers.  Read this and decide what you think about what Roberts says.  Do you agree with him?  Why or why not?  Do you have any ideas of your own about the future of the networks? As always, think about this in terms of enabling, limiting, motivating, and inhibiting factors.
Interesting it is, to read about someone proposing a question that TV may not be in our near future. I say near, because in 10 years, I will still be young. To me, I’ll be in my prime years. And yet, the thought that TV might not be around.. ehh, I digress the idea.
Just as Brian Roberts from Comcast discussed in the above article, cable and television will more than likely be an option for us. The fact of the matter is, there will just be a lot more options, as well. After reading the interview, I was very intrigued to learn more about the new innovative technology and its effects on our access to media choices. We are led in the direction of new technology each day. When tablets came out, we all desired to have one as it was like the “new kid on the block”. You could do nothing particularly new on the tablet that you couldn’t do in some other source of technology, but yet you could do so many things at once on this one single item.
What I believe Brian’s point was in his interview is, not that we will lose sight of what came first, but that we will now be introduced to more options. I recall Brian talking about how consumers stating they did not need cable, but in fact they do and continue to purchase it despite having access to streamers like Aereo. I, in fact, always talk about how I do not need cable and I don’t watch much TV, but in the moments I do watch cable, I do appreciate that time. There are certain shows I enjoy and like to watch. Even if they were streamed, I still enjoy watching it on a TV. For those that are streamed online, the thought I would have to plug my laptop to the my TV and have it being used as well.. would be exhausting. Especially if this was an every day thing, because I most certainly would not watch TV from my laptop regularly.
In the case of inhibiting, enabling, motivating and limiting factors, I believe this new technology of streaming and wireless access without cable would limit cable companies a great deal. It almost seems as though Time Warner Cable is already monopolizing, so other companies would have an even harder time in trying to provide packages for consumers. However, even in saying that, I do believe it will be motivating for cable companies to lessen their monthly dues and perhaps even be more sympathetic to customers in customizing cable packages. (In which, we all wish we could do). This would enable to economic enhancement of wireless devices. Maybe even encourage developers to increase their innovative technologies. And of course, customers would be motivated to scout out their options before making final decisions on how, where, and when they wanted to watch tv shows, movies, access internet, etc.
In conclusion, I enjoyed reading this interview as it made me think about the rapid change in technology and how it really changes our lives and the options in which we seek. I agree with Brian Roberts. More options are going to come available, but cable tv will still live on for awhile.

To unlock or not to unlock..

In Response to:

The Obama Administration Pushes the FCC to Allow Phone Unlocking

There are a couple of “policies” that contribute to the culture of cell phone usage in the United States.  One of those is “unlocking” a cell phone in order to do away with the restrictions that a manufacturer or carrier place on users, and another is the freedom or lack thereof of choosing a cell carrier.  The article above deals with these.  Read it and then comment on the issues in terms of the motivating, limiting, inhibiting, and enabling factors we have discussed.


I remember wanting the iPhone when it was first released. However, I did not have the AT&T phone service. Therefore, I couldn’t get the iPhone unless I switched service providers which I was in a position to do. After awhile, finally Sprint did have the iPhone, but by that time, I was not elgible for an upgrade, so I had to wait. Impatiently, once I was able to get an upgrade, I got the phone. However, the point of it all is that I still couldnt not purchase an iPhone until my service provider had the phone through their company directly.

In the above article, it discusses the approval for unlocking phones passed by President Barack Obama and his administration. This way, people are able to use phones provided by different carries for their service provides. This is awesome, because people are now motivated to purchasing the phones they desire and it enables them to stay with their current service providers. This enables the growth of technology as all customers will now have access to the same phones no matter what service providers they are purchasing.

This may be inhibiting for the carriers as they will feel as though they no longer carry a niche product. Although some people will even switch carriers for the phones of their choice. I also don’t believe it’s limiting to anyone except for the carriers; but even still it isn’t limiting to them, because now customers will soley choose the carriers and service providers based upon their specific needs of a service plan. The locks on the phones limit the spread of technology.

I belive the issues with this plan to have unlocked phones will be far and few between. Although many carriers will refute the idea, it will be an overall great plan for customers. And in conclusion, I agree with the new decision. In the above article, it is expressed the inhibting, enabling, limiting, and motivating factors.


In Response to:
Jefferson County Public Schools and Cell Phone Usage

the Jefferson County Public Schools have a cell phone policy that has recently been changed.  Read the article above that deals with the changes in JCPS policy and determine what you think about it.  Is it good, bad, or doesn’t matter? Whatever your opinion make sure you have a reason for thinking as you do.
Since I was in 6th grade, I’ve had a cell phone. Since I was in 6th grade, they have been banned from use in school. Since I was in 6th grade, I have used my cell phone during school. But, since I was in 6th grade, Google has become my guilty pleasure. The relevance to this is in response to the article about JCPS waiving to have their students utilize their cell phones during school hours. Each principle is said to have to apply for this waiver and explicate rationale on the reasons behind approving the usage of cell phones. My number one reason is the knowledge behind smartphones and the access to more information.
I stated Google is my guilty pleasure, because I am always googling a term or anything I may not fully understand. If I am in class and there is a word I may not know, I will Google it. Even if we are discussing articles in class, recent news, whatever it may be, I am so quick to pull it up on my phone, so I am able to better follow along with the discussion. I have done this for years now.  Because of this, my vocabulary has expanded; and people could incur that I am articulate.
I could defend both sides of the argument. There are both advantages and disadvantages to students being able to use their cell phones in school. An advantage is that of what was stated in the article; if students know they can use their cell phones in school, the temptation to constantly check their phones will decrease. Trust me, I know, because I am a student. When people are told they cannot do something, their drive to do it increases. When I know I can check my phone on my time, terms, and by my discresion, I hardly am on my phone as much.
The flip side of being able to utilize cell phones in a classroom would also be that students could access the Internet, sources of information, etc. However, in rebuttal to that argument, I believe studnets would then feel inclined to obtain cell phones; in which some grade school students do not have. Would cell phones now become a part of the school supply list? If teachers adequately use cell phones as a part of their daily instruction, everyone would have to have this item or some would be left out or at a disadvantage.
I do agree fully about allowing cell phone usage during break times. What could this possible hurt?

The War Between E-books & Printed Books

In response to:

In Praise of Printed Books, Part 2

For the first blog entry we will hit the ground running. In the first chapter of the text the authors talk about certain factors — enabling, limiting, motivating, and inhibiting — that either make a technology a success or a failure. Even though you may have a limited knowledge of technology you can figure out some of these factors for printed books versus e-books. That is right, both are types of technology. Read the short article above (don’t worry about it being Part 2, you don’t need to read Part 1) about books and then write a blog entry in which you discuss the enabling, limiting, motivating, and inhibiting factors of e-books versus printed books?  What is your preference?




In Praise of the Printed Books, Part 2, Warren discusses the cons of having access to electronic books, or E-books. Some of which I agree with, however; as a millennial, I am able to view this presumption from both sides. Looking into how much technology has taken over our lives and how it allows for better access, I believe E-books are at an advantage. Although, as an author, one might refute my side, because of sales. From my personal opinion, E-books do enable us to read more. It gives us an opportunity to access a book more easily than that of carrrying around a paperback or hardback book. Those can not only be heavy, but can be very inconvenient to tag along. If we are already using technological devices; (i.e. Ipads, Kindles, and cell phones) on a daily basis, it is that much more accessible for us to download and read a book. The question now is do E-books limit us to grasping the full effect of a reading selection? I can concur. When I am reading an E-book, because it is mostly on my Kindle, sometimes I am distracted whereas I would less likely be distracted if I was actually holding a physical book in my hand and wasn’t getting notifications or anything of that sort from social networks or emails. On the otherhand (literally); I am more motivated to read having it be so easy for me to obtain. I have a Kindle and I can access the online book store to purchase a book. I don’t have to leave my home to purchase the book and that makes it that much more motivating for me to even want to read the book. With this all being said, I still will atest that the experience one gets by reading an E-book isn’t even comparable to reading a printed book. So in short, E-books may be convenient, but they ARE inhibiting the exuberating, full experience of “reading” an actual book, not tablet.