Can Google be a contender amongst Facebook, Myspace, and other social networking sites?

Social networking sites have grown exponentially in recent years and this once-view fad is now becoming as necessary to an individual as e-mail or search engines.  Speaking of search engines, Google has created social networking capabilities for web surfers who may be particularly interested in themselves.  An article from Slate Magazine stated that when users of Google search their own names, they are able to view their own profile page, or create one and thus, they could add information about themselves to the cite, allowing more information about them to appear when someone (or they) searches their name and pose a threat to other social networking sites like Facebook.

Upon searching for myself on Google, I found different links that attached to my accomplishments and groups, however, nothing about a profile.  Looking back over the article I noticed Slate provided a link to Google’s profile page.  Therefore, I believe that Google is not as eager to entice users to create a profile as Slate says.  

 

Google profile page found through Slate Magazine

 

 

That being said, when looking over the profile page, one can view what their profile could look like and can click on links to other people’s profiles.  The site basically says that when one uses the profile, people can find information about them more easily.  Also, they promote that an individual can personalize his or her page which can be linked to other blogs and keep up with family and friends.

The switch to digital, what about white spaces?

With the date for the switch to all digital programming in the United States approaching closer and closer each day, the issue of white spaces has grown into a concern for many.  White space is the frequencies that are not currently being used by television or radio when they broadcast to viewers or listeners.  The issue that companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Dell argue is that with such available frequencies, there should be the opportunity for individuals to use certain devices that can pick up and use white spaces for their own needs so long as they do not interfere with television signals.  However, the counter argument that stands is that such devices in fact do interfere with the frequencies that television and radio companies need.  Some have even argued that it would be wise to allocate such frequencies in the case of emergencies so that police officers, fire fighters and public officials could communicate through the frequencies.

rabbit ears from Google

The Wall Street Journal said this week that The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to allow stations to apply for additional frequencies.  This is probably  because the stations will hypothetically lose viewers once the digital switch is officially put into place (it was supposed to happen nationwide in February of this year).  The Wall Street Journal also said that the opportunity for stations to acquire these frequencies would be beneficial because a test in Wilmington, N.C. last year showed that certain individuals would permanently lose certain stations because the digital and analog range is different. 

from Google

 

 

 

This decision by the FCC is another example of the complications that the country is facing in attempting to become all digital.

Internet Ads: The future is now or never

Online advertising is facing as many struggles as advertising in newspapers.  With so many ways to target Internet users it’s a wonder how such companies aren’t generating record revenues.  But alas, with the economic recession, there are few companies that are generating any substantial profits when compared to previous years.

The New York Times bits blog says that one method certain companies have been employing is to change the size and appearance of ads on websites so that some could be floating in a given space and grab the reader’s eye, while others would just be larger.  They state that MSNBC has already begun to use this model.  When viewing the MSNBC site, it is apparent that when viewing certain pages, one is bombarded with a video ad that pops up onto the screen, but is specifically only contained within that page.  Upon clicking the back button or a link to another page the ad disappears with it.

The company that supplied the ad, Vibrant, promotes its “in-text” ads on its site.  It lets the viewer roll over a specific word to see what the ad would look like when it pops up, kind of like the blogroll section of someone’s blog on this site.

 

Yahoo in-text-ad from Google

 

Another method that has grown in popularity particularly on Hulu‘s video site is the 30 second or one-minute video ad that comes up before the site lets you watch the show you clicked on.  When watching a re-run of house the other day, I was brought to a page that gave me the option of viewing the show uninterrupted if I watched a one-minute Chanel ad instead of 30 second ads dispersed between every 10 minutes of the show. This new option may begin to prove more effective for advertisers on other popular sites, depending upon what those sites offer.  Since Hulu is a video service, it makes sense that people shouldn’t mind viewing one longer snippet of a video ad since they were already set on watching their program and they are used to seeing such ads on regular television.  It will be a matter of time before a new standard for Internet advertising is set.

Monetizing News

Imagine if newspapers or even news organizations ceased to exist.  Imagine that an entity such as the New York Times stopped producing news forever.  Now of course with a company as reputable as the New York Times, such a possibility most likely will not come true any time in the near future, however, the desire to obtain news increases, news organizations’ revenues are decreasing at a great rate.  Is there a way that news can be monetized such that people will still seek the news they get now for free for a price in the future?

Image from Google

My idea for monetizing the Internet without compromising people’s wallets would include a tiered pricing plan backed by a guarantee that the news a person receives is credible.  Imagine a Society of Journalists, which existed to “certify”or professionalize journalists as they once were.  Right now, practically anyone can be a journalist as long as they know how to write well and obtain their own footage with the proper resources like digital recording cameras.  While it is great that news can be told in a variety of ways that was not possible before by a countless number of people, this has also lead to the mesh of news with entertainment, opinion, and so forth, such that it is hard to find many reliable and credible news outlets.

Anyone who would want to be a part of the Society would have to pay dues to help fund the system until the recession blows over, until advertisers could make more profits.  Current reputable news organizations like the New York Times or The Washington Post would already have the qualifications to be a part of the Society, and they and other news organizations could pick a member to be part of a Board for the Society to help induct other growing or start-up news organizations that have gained enough popularity and stability to qualify to be a part of the Society.

This idea wouldn’t stop individuals from writing about news themselves, however the Society along with limited viewing possibilities of stories and the implementation of mandatory subscription payments by all news organizations would help prevent misinformed individuals from publishing questionable material pertaining to the news.  Also, the Society would separate regular news from credible news that could be relied upon since the journalists who wrote it would be certified.  Isn’t it comforting to have a doctor who went to medical school perform surgery on you as opposed to one who didn’t?  The same should hold true for news. People would pay knowing that they were getting a quality service instead of any service, and so that they wouldn’t have to sift through the Internet.

In terms of pricing, there could be a tiered model, much like what cable providers do for different levels of service, however with news the difference in price would separate the quantity of news an individual would want to obtain; the quality would remain the same throughout (ideally the best there is).  Individuals could subscribe to daily feeds or liner ledes for a small price.  This would serve people who seek quick news on the go and could view it easily on their smart phones.  For a slightly greater price, people could subscribe to the feeds and longer format stories.  This might interest individuals of older generations, who are already used to the New York Times’ stories with jumps and more in-depth reporting.  For people interested in being informed about a particular topic, or those who want to write a story continuing an ongoing issue, they could subscribe to archives.  

While some of these ideas may seem radical compared to the current business model, they attempt to prompt thought into individuals about the news that want to see decades from now, not to mention the fact that in case you didn’t know, everyone is scrambling to find a way to make money in the journalism industry.

DPI (Deep Packet Inspection): Dives into the Privacy of Individuals?

One aspect of the net neutrality battle is the discovered potential of deep packet inspection, which presents implications for file sharers and pretty much any user who uploads or downloads from the online network.  Deep packet inspection functions as a notification application primarily for those transferring information over the Internet.  In a “packet” of information, almost like a letter, there is the general tag line of what the letter or “packet” contains also called the header, and the body itself.  When an online service provider moves information from one place to another on the Internet, they have the knowledge of where to transfer the bundle of info because of the header.  However, there are companies that exist to sell technologies that can enable the networks with the power to view the actual content within the packet, including Radware, Allot Communications, and Packet Capture Express, although this does not by any means say these companies came into existence for this reason.  These companies exist to ensure security, although many individuals are afraid that by allowing the major ISP’s the ability to obtain personal information, they could in turn behold a great power because of DPI.  Many argue that access to that much information, which could include examples such as a personal e-mail or video of a family event is a violation of privacy and unnecessary for the providers to possess.  However, the providers say that DPI will allow them to divert different types of Internet traffic based on the capacity (bandwidth) they require or the near perfect playback in the form of a live video. However, there are some who are skeptical, and still fear for future yet.  Only time will tell if deep packet inspection is the innovative agent of knowledge or violation of privacy aspects.

Net Neutrality Part Deux

For part two, I’ve included a video version of the basic arguments for the pro net neutrality and anti-net neutrality arguments discussed in my previous post below.  The first is a link to a CNET video from March of 2006 in which AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre opposes network neutrality, including the term itself and discusses the possibility of merging with Bell South, which AT&T did gain in 2006.  The second is a video that promotes a website also mentioned in the post below, savetheinternet.com, which is in favor of network neutrality.

Anti-Network Neutrality

from CNET

 

Pro Network Neutrality

from Youtube