All Things Should Be Free

I’m not sure if this qualifies as an actual Blog post, or if it should be a comment somewhere, but I wanted to share this thought. I also realize that parts of it are terribly confusing and the grammar is not ideal. I’ve tried to be as clear as possible.

Researching for this class has made me realize something. Facebook and Google are worth billions. Their employees and CEO’s make unbelievable amounts of money. Yet, what exactly do they sell?

This gives me a completely ridiculous idea.

All things should be free. All companies, services and products should pay for themselves by advertising for other things (the way Google and Facebook do). ‘Name brands’ would be invaluable because only the things widely advertised would be consumed reliably. Other companies would then want to advertise themselves on the name brand items.

Eliminating cost would eliminate one of the main indicators of worth and value. People would have to turn to how well something was advertised and how much others wanted to advertise on that something in order to ascertain what it was worth. If someone wanted a car, they’d still want a good, reliable car, preferably the best. How would they tell? Yes, it should be shiny and look cool. But then they all would, wouldn’t they? How would one avoid buying a cheap knock-off that could be dangerous? One would have to look to the advertisements. Car companies would want to advertise on a Jaguar because it has a reputation. Car companies would want to advertise on a Honda because they’re everywhere and reliable. We would be left with the best cars, for free. The car companies would essentially vote for which other companies survived. These surviving companies would still strive for excellence, for once a company lost repute it would lose its advertising and thus its revenue.

I understand how implausible all this is. But wouldn’t it be cool? In a way, it would be like returning to Caveman days. There would no money, just someone’s word. It makes me think of potential jobs like wearing advertisements all day. It also would change the political landscape. One would only trust a politician who was visibly endorsed by trustworthy people/companies and who advertised on other worthy people and companies.

Thanks for listening to my silliness.

When the digital divide and the rural-urban divide align

We talked at one point during this quarter about who is "left out" when they are not constantly connected--either because they choose not to be--or because they have no opportunity to be. For the former category, I suggested the elderly as an example because they may not be willing to invest the time to learn new skills, to master new technology. Plus, we should remember that it is more difficult "for an old dog to learn new tricks."

Now, a front-page story in today's New York Times reminds us of a group who would like to be connected, but who don't have a choice. The headline is "Digital Age is Slow to Arrive in Rural America." In it, journalist Kim Severson reports from Coffeeville, Alabama, population 563, in non-metropolitan Clarke County, where only half of residents have access to the broadband that so many of us take for granted. The story focuses on Coffeeville, but it is essentially about the Obama Administration's plan to "wire" the nation for broadband and close the digital divide--with a special focus on unserved and underserved communities--many of them rural. More than $7 billion in stimulus funding was earmarked for this effort. Severson summarizes the situation:

In rural America, only 60 percent of households use broadband Internet service, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Commerce. That is 10 percent less than urban households. Over all, 28 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

In Clarke County, the situation is even worse. Half of the county's residents cannot easily engage in e-commerce, consult their physician online, participate in online banking, upload family photos to Facebook, or make an appointment with a public official. With cell phone service also lacking in many parts of the county, they also cannot receive emergency alerts. Severson tells us that the only computer many Coffeeville students ever touch is at school. For many residents, it is at the library.

Severson's story quotes Brian Depew of the Center for Rural Affairs, who likens broadband to electricity early last century, when the federal government made a huge investment in rural electrification to level the playing field for rural people and places and bring them a critical service.

“You often hear people talk about broadband from a business development perspective, but it’s much more significant than that ... . This is about whether rural communities are going to participate in our democratic society. If you don’t have effective broadband, you are cut out of things that are really core to who we are as a country.”

The story is a good reminder of the myriad ways we have come to rely on being constantly connected, ways not available to rural residents because the digital divide all too often does align along the rural-urban axis. Read a related post on Legal Ruralism here.

View a map of the places with broadband access here.

The Costs We Can Agree On

The people who consider technology a bane can rattle off the evils of its use. One cost that we have overlooked so far, though, is perhaps that which is most universally applicable. This is a cost that everyone cares about – money.

Whether or not our electronic devices are bringing on the downfall of humanity and changing our lives, take a second to think about how your bank account would be different if you didn't NEED these gadgets. That new laptop you needed for school? With a student deal, it only cost $500! That new WoW expansion you're clamoring for will cost $40 in addition to that monthly subscription. Even without games, the ever-intriguing Kinect will burn through $150 of your savings. Americans spend around 9% of their income on electronics and appliances, and we can expect our devices that keep us connected are responsible for a large portion of this cost. Let's face it, our devices are invariably expensive.

How do we rationalize these superfluous expenses? Technology constantly improves and advances, and what was cutting edge one week is old news the next. This decreases its cost and makes us feel better about buying it. When I was in high school, I wanted an iPhone (shocking, I know). When Christmas rolled around and my 2-year contract was up, my parents put my request into perspective. They told me that I could have an iPhone... OR I could have the money an iPhone would cost them in one year in cold, hard cash. I chose to stick with a basic phone, and save the money. In June, Apple changed the plan options from only a $30 a month option to two levels of data plans, with the lower costing $15. This helped my parents justify the cost, and this time when Christmas rolled around, I finally received my shiny new iPhone 4. I certainly appreciate the fact that it's cheaper in the long haul, and my parents felt like they weren't being ripped off. I cant help but wonder though, if the iPhone had been released with this pricing scheme, would they have been so keen on committing to a $15 a month plan?

This is all fine and well, but not everyone wants to wait four years to buy an affordable, outdated DS. We see everyone around us using the cool new "device to have" and we want it too. It is through our addiction and level of desire that we are able to justify these expenses. Owning the latest and gratest gizmo satisfies the cravings we have to be that person. It's totally worth it, right?