Please read the following chapter (Ch. 5 The Medium: Global Technologies and Organizations) and come prepared to discuss the different global organizations which govern international communications:
http://books.google.com/books?id=heEppDtfkNoC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=global+technologies+and+organizations&source=bl&ots=QZ_LstUgvc&sig=NjPBdyh5LQBN8_oLnUQ8SztumdI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=otj1UPucBYfWiAKRr4HIBA&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=global%20technologies%20and%20organizations&f=false
For your blog post think about these global organizations. How do you see their functioning? Are they valuable? What types of communications, in your opinion, should they govern?
This was a very interesting overview on the various global organizations surrounding communications today. I can see that many of their objectives are admirable, especially when it comes to balancing the rights of core nations with peripheral nations. There were many issues I had never thought of that the ITU had to deal with between these two types of countries. I also think its hard to designate what specific types of communications these global organizations should govern. To me, it seems similar to the issue we have in the US of what is state law vs national law. There needs to be a good balance because no country is going to be happy if a global organization starts putting super strict rules on Internet use or any other new technology that is invented in the near future. That will only lead to further contention than what we have already experienced with these organizations.
ReplyDeleteFrom the chapter it appears that in general, these global organizations are important, yet poorly managed. It seems that there is a power struggle between large and influential countries and smaller peripheral countries. Advanced nations only want to discuss advanced technology.
ReplyDeleteThey focus too much on the concerns of technical problems that arise amongst engineers.
Spectrum allocations are given to countries that already have the technology, making it impossible for peripheral nations to advance nearly as quickly as influential nations can.
Peripheral nations have different agendas, creating vast fragmentation preventing them from forming a powerful voting block to big nations. It also appears that changes have been made in the last decade to change some of these behaviors that would make it more fair for all nations to compete with each other and benefit from global information systems.
These types of organizations, I think, are valuable to an extent. Certain activities are absolutely necessary and different nations need to be in a position to communicate their wants and needs. Frequency space needs to be agreed upon and nations need to agree to who is using which orbital space. Beyond scheduling issues though, I’m always scared of a huge organization that is expensive to run and doesn’t have clearly defined or agreed upon outcomes
Any global organization is difficult to manage. How can the whole world agree on one set of standards whether they be political or based on global communication. The International Telecommunication Union or ITU run by the U.N. deal with technical standards, radio microwaves passing into neighboring into other nations (like the explain you gave in class about the U.S. and Canada), and equipment protocols. They have had difficulties in managing all of this because of so many different countries and the needs that need to be addressed. The ITU can be valuable, however, like any bureaucratic system, there are difficulties. Smaller countries or poor nations naturally are neglected. It takes longer for these third world countries to get up to standard and by this time the richer nations have already divided up the wealth. There is great value in coming together as nations to organize global communications but the powerless countries get left behind. Some valuable aspects are certain commissions or studies which shed light on the difference between poor and rich countries. The Maitland Commission, for example, examined how many people have telephones in the world. Statistics such as these helps us understand what state the world is in and helps garnish a realistic perspective of the average person's life. Statistics like these were even used in our last lecture where you spoke of cell phones, Internet access and telephones. These organizations have important roles in the world but could be governed and used more effectively.
ReplyDeleteJust as in any organization in any field, there are many benefits that can come from them if properly managed. An example of this is the aid many NPO's lend when it is needed. However when it comes to organizations that are trying to lay laws or control the distribution of things, I feel that the task is very difficult to accomplish. Even within a smaller group (such as the US) making people agree on one law is something that at times takes years.
ReplyDeleteAs this article mentions, when it comes to telecommunications,in the past it has been first-come, first-serve due to their focus on the technical aspects and not so much on the social and cultural. The core nations always seemed to benefit since they get the first pick leaving little behind for the peripheral nations. So even though these organizations may be trying to change, bringing the every nation to agree is something basically insurmountable because each faces different difficulties and situations. You don't have to think very hard to see why these nations are seemingly being left behind.
We live in the "information age," meaning, we live in a time where information is readily available at our fingertips. Because of the enormous technological advances we've made as core nations thus far, we cannot really consider a nation to be modern without a "sophisticated, technically advanced, and globally interconnected telecommunication network." As these core nations proceed to progress, these telecommunication systems are key components to their success. Essentially, being able to communicate is key to a successful global economy. However, with that said, how can every nation agree on a single set of standards in which to communicate when we all have different issues and needs that need to be tended to? I think this reading kind of draws into our last reading, showing a divide in technology, leaving the smaller and less advanced nations behind and left out of the global conversation. I think that these types of organizations we read about in this chapter are quite useful to an extent. However, each country is different, and I feel like global organizations like the ones we read about will always have a hard time appealing to everyone. But imposing a lot of rules and regulations is most likely not the way to go if there is not a clearly defined solution that will appease everyone...which is probably non-existent.
ReplyDeleteThe digital divide is something that I believe global organizations should worry about, but as these companies become privatized, they are more worried about pleasing their shareholders than their responsibility to less developed countries. This divide can be seen in issues like IP addresses, that favor larger, more developed countries like America. Some of the smaller countries suggested that instead, broadcasting should be regulated by governments to ensure national and political interests. Because we all know how good the government is at regulating things....
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to learn that there are organizations like the INCD that are there to support the people in smaller countries who are worried about maintaining their heritage. As the U.S. strives for global control, it is possible that these smaller nations will be "Americanized" whether they want to or not.
Jennifer Riggs
I think these global organizations seem great in theory, but do they really work? I am not so sure. Like we discussed, the world is more of a global city rather than a village. While it seems great to have organizations that govern global communication, the cultural differences of each country and the role media plays in each culture make this idea seem unrealistic. Because global communication is so important and effects many things, including global economy, I think that it is necessary to have basic regulations. But I think the more basic, the better. I feel like the more the global organizations try to regulate, the more issues would arise, potentially causing the world to further become "worlds apart."
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that these types of organizations are created with good intentions, they are almost always impossible to manage. Because there is such variation from country to country in every facet possible, it is impossible to create an organization that will appropriately fulfill the needs of each individual country. However, these types of organizations can be valuable to an extent because many create an open line of communication between nations, especially those that may not usually be heard on a global scale. I think that such organizations should exist, although they should have less of a regulatory role and more of an overseer role. Although they can be positive and help to facilitate communication, imposing regulations that are irrelevant in many countries does not do any good.
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned, a global organization is useful in theory, but in reality can be extremely difficult to manage. As we talked about last class, the world is incredibly varied from country to country, and attempting to create a global communication that caters to the needs of each country is nearly impossible. I think these systems are a good idea in theory, but I don't know if they could actually successfully exist. I think finding a balance that works internationally could certainly help improve communication, but might leave some nations under the impression that they are not as successful as other nations, which obviously defeats the point of a global communication method.
ReplyDeleteReading about the different global organizations that govern international communications and comparing it to the lack of technology in some countries that we discussed in class, I see a standard organization as impossible in this day. I think the value could be immeasurable - the type of communication that could exist between countries would be so beneficial but again, it is not realistic. It is also hard to think of the type of communication that they should control. I think in many countries, controlling internet usage or data plans with smart phones would cause even more conflict than already exists regarding these issues. However, I do see some value in the control of satellites for television. I think it is incredible how connected the world was for major events such as the first steps on the moon, the Olympic games, and World Cup matches. The work and the function done for satellite was valuable in our society at the time, but that is worlds apart from controlling internet usage and cell phones or other functions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i feel like many of the global organizations are fantastic in theory. Somehow though, they seem to fall short of living up to expectations and fully carrying out their intended roles. While they are clearly organized to simplify things a provide strength where systems are often weak, I feel their systems become complex. This is when an issue arises.
ReplyDeleteIt seems difficult to make a set of rules or guidelines that can govern the whole worlds communications systems. Each is so different and nation specific. I am rather skeptical to their full benefit. I feel that they may be needed to govern scheduling and what not, but that would be it. The world is such a large place, and even though it is getting smaller through globalization, I don't feel this is the way to manage it.
It was interesting readying about the different organizations and their functions and how they attempt to govern international communication. The whole time I was reading it, I was thinking about what I learned in the last reading about globalism; that it is to put the best interests of the world ahead of the individual countries. There is no way the ITU can meet everyone's needs. The idea is nice that they can govern it, but with all of the economic and social differences in different nations, putting a regulation one everyone may affect one country immensely and not affect another at all. I don't know what a proper solution would be though, because I still see some regulation as necessary.
ReplyDeleteLizzy Early
ReplyDeleteIn theory, the global organizations are great. They regulate, mandate, and organize the world and the communication technology. And I think we can all agree that for the first few years each of them were set up, they were of great help. But here's the problem, every country today feels differently about how the technology should be used. How much, why, who... And at the end of the day, every country will want to do what's best for them and not what's best for the whole. world. Even I can't decide what's best because my perspective is skewed. So making far reaching rules for every country to follow seems like we're just setting ourselves up to fail. But, I still think we need to have them. Because if anything major does happen, there is already a group of people set in place to solve the issue. If we abandon the organizations we will stop talking about the gaps will widen between everyone. Talking and setting all these regulations and coming short is better than not trying at all.
I feel like a global organization is something that needs to exist. It shouldn't be able to rule over other nations, but rather be an intermediary between nations. This will decrease the likelihood of nations getting into fights with each other. Regulation is always needed, but the nations still need their freedom to do what they want to do within the regulations agreed on. I think that they are a valuable asset to the world. They make decisions that wouldn't really otherwise be made. The world connects through technology and there should be some type of governing body between them.
ReplyDeleteI think they should definitely govern satellites. The chapter mentioned that there is not much space for satellites and there is a pressing need for orbital slots. Developing nations, when and if they get this technology, will not have much space to put up their own satellites. There is a picture of all the satellites that are in orbit, along with any other debris, and it is just incredible how much is up there. I think this would be a good place for a global organization.
The biggest issue I see with global communications management is that technologically, every country in the world is not at the same level. Places like the U.S., China, and Japan have an interconnectedness that is simply a part of life that doesn't exist yet in developing countries, and I don't believe this means we have to march into every country that doesn't have one telephone per person and do it all for them. Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish. I do agree that there needs to be some organization that licenses these satellites and radio frequencies to make sure there isn't an overcrowding issue, but I don't think we need to save empty spots in outer space directly over countries that may not create a satellite for another fifty years. When they do create that satellite, then they should be able to license it and launch it without a problem, but until then I don't think these countries should expect to "reform the organization from within" because they really aren't a major part of it yet.
ReplyDeleteI think as a whole, the organization is a good idea. However, if the organization has poor leadership and distributes information and technology in a biased matter, what is the point? The countries in the world are at different points with technology and communication. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is the core nations are trying to push technology to a higher level while the peripheral nations are constantly trying to catch up. Each country is at a different level and what is best for one country may not benefit another.
ReplyDeleteI think overall, it is good we have organizations like this because if anything happened, we have a group of people who are in charge of fixing it. Some regulations are needed for global communication, but we need to keep in mind that all countries have different needs.
I have always been a person that believes if you leave something alone, it will eventually reach a balance point. I don't believe in messing with things a lot and adding too many rules and restrictions. With that being said I understand the world we live in and without some type of system of rules set up and a place were people can communicate and discuss their problems, everything would be chaos. So I do believe these global organizations can serve a purpose to bring the world together so everyone's voices can be heard. I believe this facilitates change and equality.
ReplyDeleteI do believe their power should be limited to just the bare necessities. I think they have the power to set up and preside at global conferences to make sure the meetings run smoothly. I do think that their power should be limited to just the technical side of global communications. The fact that they are solely a telecommunications union should hint at their responsibilities. I don't think they should meddle in the social, economic, or cultural issues. First of all, that is way too many issues to handle. I assume with all countries in the world there are so many social, economic, and cultural issues to handle. Those kinds of issues are for governments to figure out and the ITU should not have power over individual governments. I understand some countries are less fortunate than others but it does not seem fair to give advantages to peripheral nations who are not yet developed enough to even use the resources given to them. These kinds of issues should be discussed and taken care of between governments and leave only the technical global communication problems to the ITU.
I understand why there is a need for organizations that establish some sort of global communications management, but I don't think there is a clear or easy answer to how these organizations should be run. It's evident that there is not an equality between nations around the world as far as technology is concerned. An organization that governs and directs which controls control which airways and satellite space seems necessary, so that the underdeveloped countries are not overlooked. However, the underdeveloped countries don't have as great of a need for these mediums as Europe and America do. I was most fascinated with the section of the reading that talked about Intelsat. While reading this I couldn't help but think that there is truly no fair way to govern international communications. Small, developing countries and under-represented, and big-developed countries are more powerful. This may seem unfair to the small countries, but at the same time, wouldn't it be unfair to give Bolivia the same amount of satellite space as the United States of America? I think that these organizations do have some value to them, and will never function at 100% fairness and efficiency because someone will always feel under represented. These organizations provide a means for telecommunications to be a bit more fair, but I don't think we'll ever have an organization that everyone is satisfied with.
ReplyDeleteWithout a global organization or the ITU in charge there would be complete anarchy. I think even more wealthier nations would have more benefits and freedoms to do what they wanted with communication technology. I feel that the ITU is functioning at its best, its not a perfect system, but it works. They have been valuable and helping push new technologies to the forefront even though some of those technologies have sprung up in other nations before reaching every nation and even some new technologies are still not in every nation. What surprises me is that we've allowed an organization to actually control spectrums that allow us to communicate. I find that fascinating.
ReplyDeleteNow when it comes to satellites and allocating space parking spots. We have a huge problem. It seems that things weren't planned ahead and that the issue hasn't been resolved. It a system that needs to be govern properly and re-organized or peripheral countries won't be able to advance.
Overall, its a necessary evil, but so far it has fulfilled its purpose it just needs to restructure itself to build up more developing countries.
Just like with globalism, I think there are pros and cons to managing global communication. In theory, it would be a really great thing. It would give guidelines for every nation to follow and the world would be on the "same page" as far as technology goes. But I don't think it would work. Each nation has its own ideas about how technology should be run, and there would be many opinions and disagreements about what should be put in place. Our world can't hardly agree on any other global topic, each nation has their own policies for everything else, I just can't see this working, even though it might benefit our world. I would also be concerned about underdeveloped nations. They are not working at the level of America or Europe. They don't have the technologies that we have, and even if they did, their people would have to adjust to a different way of life and business. Radical change like that never goes well with the people of that nation and I would worry about the people in those nations under a global management.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of these global organizations to bring together nations and balance the needs of each equally is respectable. Unfortunately as it was noted this can be difficult to accomplish when trying to establish uniformity among nations with different political agendas and ideologies. It is difficult to expect core countries to suppress their developments so that other peripheral countries can capitalize and have their fair opportunity. I think these organizations are extremely valuable even in their attempts to regulate and maintain a degree of balance in the world. Fragmentation naturally will occur but using satellites to broadcast the Olympics and the World Cup are examples how cooperation in bringing resources together can have positive impacts and bring nations together. Mismanagement and bias influences may alter their success but I think it is still important that we try and work together and do whatever possible to share achievements and opportunities so that communication throughout the world can be achieved at some level.
ReplyDeleteGlobal communications organizations are necessary, but there is a lot of ambiguity about how much they should govern. Yes, they need to regulate where satellites are located and the distribution of radio frequencies. However, I don't know where to draw the line in regulation. The Northern countries shouldn't monopolize satellite parking spots, but also we are the ones who use them the most and invent the newer technology. Giving them the necessary resources won't even out the playing field because the smaller, poorer nations lack the money and education to ever catch up. All of these organizations should only regulate when absolutely necessary, like the emergence of a new technology.
ReplyDeleteMaitland Commission that argues that technology is an essential component of development. Although that is true, giving undeveloped countries technology prematurely will not aid their country. It'll be expensive and useless. If third world country wants aid in bringing or buying communication systems they should prove how it will help them as a nation and be useful to their people.
Without the ITU and Intelsat there would be chaos, but in the end they are just another form of bureaucracy. Resources, money, and education around the world are not fair, so the distribution of technological communications systems will never be either.
These organization are in an interesting predicament. They are expected to fairly govern communications that are cutting edge. When something is first invented, only a few people really see the full scope of potential of that form of communication. For example, initially it doesn't seem like a big deal to have a satellite miles above another country. However, when you realize that limits the ability for that country to make a satellite, it becomes tricky. These organizations are valuable, but they will inevitably be behind the times at first. All of their actions are really reactions. It's difficult to plan ahead. I don't really have too much of an opinion on what they should govern, it seems a bit too complex for me to have some sort of a strong opinion. I do think it is valuable that they keep peripheral countries in mind. However, I think that while they should allocate the ability to use that form of communication or space to these countries, I believe it should be like any other commodity. It should be available to primary and advanced countries, just at a price. That's just a thought.
ReplyDeleteEric Vincent
ReplyDeleteIn a world of powerful and week nations, it is interesting to debate or raise questions as to whether or not nations should compete in the communications world or whether developing nations should be granted help in gaining more communicative and technological exposure. It is easy to note that there is a great divide in success between nations in the worlds of economics, technology, education, etc. These different global institutions can be very valuable in creating and improving telecommunicates abilities within developing nations. Many developing nations are so far behind nations such as the United States in telecommunications that they probably cannot catch up without the help of developed nations or governing bodies.
I have to think that improved abilities in communications and technology could improve a nation. The text mentioned that the Maitland Commission advises that, “The best way to redress the imbalance and enhance the telecommunications ability of the developing world was through the expansion of telecommunications network.” It makes sense to me that there is great value in global organizations helping out developing nations. However, I understand that competition can help create better products and other things. So I understand that countries and organizations do not have to be responsible for developing nations, but they can do a lot of good to help create more equality between countries.
There is no question that these global organizations are not truly functioning at an optimal level. The ITU and several other organizations attempt to represent all countries when assigning out limited things for communication purposes such as radio frequencies and satellite positions. The function of these organizations is to provide fair opportunity to all nations when it comes to communication efforts. It just isn't entirely possible. Any organization will have biases or opinions they bring to the table which will affect their its decisions. In most of these organization that results in less developed countries having less opportunities. It shows that these organizations may not be functioning as well as they could be.
ReplyDeleteThe are valuable in the sense that they are necessary for somethings, minimal though they may be. Because there are many things, such as space or frequencies, that are limited and different countries have to share there is a need for these organizations. However, these corporations should be limited to assigning frequencies assignments and the like. They should not be able to govern content or anything like that. They are only necessary to govern things that individual countries cannot govern themselves such as how to apportion things between countries. They should not actually be able to govern communication, just some of the means to do it.
I think the idea of organization in managing global communication is good, but giving that power over to someone to decide how communication should be mandated makes things tricky. Ideally it would put everyone on the same page, giving weak nations a fair chance, but does it really do that? Each nation has different needs for technology; we cannot expect smaller nations to be on the same level as places like China and the United States. Nothing in life is fair and on such a large scale I honestly believe there is no fair way to control international communications and meet each nations technological need. WIth that said, I think basic regulations are a necessary part of nations reaching a compromise and taking care of the chaos that would exist without the Telecommunications Union.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious to me that organizations need to exist to manage global telecommunications. In theory, this type of organization is very valuable. They can help to standardize the industry which would help regulate conflicts between countries, regulate technological development, and protect the public from dangerous transmission frequencies. In this sense, I believe that international organizations are important. These organizations are, however, faced with a dilemma.
ReplyDeleteThe western world specializes in the creation of media. They are in a position where they are able to produce media content much more effectively than is possible in other parts of the world. I think that the organizations are right to give these countries satellite space because they have proven that it will take advantage of its capabilities. Once peripheral countries reach a point in their telecommunications development that is at a high level, the issue can be readdressed. When it comes down to it, the organizations cannot give ever country equal access to resources, and priority should be given to those who are able to specialize in media production.
I believe that these global organizations play a vital role in controlling, maintaining and standardizing many subjects in the realm of telecommunications. For example I think that the ITU is a irreplaceable organization that greatly benefits the world. There needs to regulation, an international organization to govern it and standards that the world adheres to in communication. The problem as stated in this chapter is not so much whether or not it is valuable but rather whether or not the ITUs infrastructure needs to be reformed to better reflect a more equal distribution of wavelengths, frequency or even space for satellites above the earth.
ReplyDeleteThe way that I see this issue whether it is the ITU, WTO, INTELSAT or any other global organization is not whether in theory they are valuable. It seems the real problem with any of them is if the are truly living up the missions of governing and functioning in ways that is both fair for core and peripheral nations. So whether the issue is radio wavelengths or the global communications economy the heart of the issue is balancing equality while still remaining functional as an organization.
Preston Wittwer
ReplyDeleteBy relying on meetings, delegations and conferences, these global organizations are attempting to function by having engineers make decisions that have far-reaching diplomatic side effects that go beyond technology. They do everything very formally and take their time between conferences and meetings. By relying on endorsements from other global organizations and by participating nations, they desire legitimacy in their goals and purposes.
All the endless debating and bureaucracy aside, these organizations are helpful in many ways. They have helped developed improved safety and communications objectives, like implementing an international Morse code. But most importantly they can give a voice to otherwise voiceless developing nations in the technological arena. By giving these nations a voice, the inequalities in telecommunication resources and distribution can be addressed (and hopefully fixed).
Historically, these organizations have governed fixed resources like radio frequencies and orbital slots, but in the future it looks like they will be more focused on ensuring equality of communications resources and materials.
This chapter was really helpful in outlining the various global organizations and the complexity involved with managing global telecommunications. I would be interested in learning more about how the privatization of these organization impacts the way they function. The reading touched on it, but some clarification would be useful. I think these organizations are valuable, especially with the continually expanding use of communications systems, such as the internet and television. The chapter mentioned the Titanic and how the ITU was able to govern radio practices after the disaster, making 24 hour wireless operators required. I think in situations like this, it is so important to have these global communications governing organizations to improve our quality of life and safety.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter mentioned how the minority of the human race enjoys news technology, while the majority lives in complete isolation. This was demonstrated by the uneven distribution of cell phones throughout the world. These global organizations discussed in the text are working to bridge these gaps. While the idea of additional governing bodies tends to freak me out, ITU, WTO, etc. seem like a necessary part of life to keep the telecommunications sector organized and properly functioning.
Chandler Anderson
ReplyDeleteOne thing that people often fail to realize is that technologies, organizations, businesses, etc., work to manipulate media in the way that they want it to be viewed. Certain topics, ideas, or beliefs are placed all around the country in different media outlets to force conversation and opinions to be displayed about said topics. Knowing this, many types of communication should be regulated in order to keep people from being easily persuaded or wrongly informed on topics. It is part of our human protection that we expect to embrace. As new, more modern, technologies are being developed, this becomes more and more important.
As we read about historical examples of technological regulation in the past, it is very apparent that this regulation could serve the public in a very positive or a very negative way. It is up to how the regulators decide to control technology and the media. As media has grown increasingly, so have the number of satellites in use and the number of companies that now provide these satellites. Regulations and privatization laws need to be enacted in order to make sure this doesn't cause for information overload across the world, leading to a crash in the entire system. On the contrary, we need to also be careful that the market is properly saturated so that we can stay clear of media dillution. The World Trade Organization is of upmost importance with the massive economic growth and trade we have seen.
After reading the article I think it important to have organization in managing global communication at the start, but as in all circumstances, it becomes difficult to give the power back to the nations once you have helped them financially for so long. In a perfect world it would seem that there would be leaders who rise up or station themselves in underdeveloped countries to improve the circumstances but that is almost never the case and corruption would undeniably ensue.
ReplyDeleteIt is a difficult circumstance they find themselves in; does a tech-savvy country monopolize things like satellite parking or radio frequencies or does it sacrifice for the betterment of surrounding, developing countries? I would hope that these global organizations would be equally beneficial for the countries that are developing the new technologies as for the companies who continue to need support. Proper allocation of technology and resources should be a responsibility upheld by the tech-dominate countries and global organizations.
I am coming to realize, through this class, what an enormous role the ITU plays in global communications. For me, it is not something I ever thought about. Obviously the Internet functions at an organized, [mostly] civilized level, and it is thanks to international regulatory organizations that it has existed how it has.
ReplyDeleteI think one particular challenge that the ITU, WTO, INTELSAT, etc. are faced with is taking the "world" of telecommunications (which is for the most part beyond borders -- a world or country of it's own) and preventing it from disintegrating into chaos and anarchy. I frankly think these organizations are necessary and effective, because let's face it, users can't be expected to regulate these systems, nor can individual countries regulate them on a massive scale.
I realize a lot of complexities come into play with free speech issues, especially when each participating country has differing regulations about free speech, but I think the existing organizations have navigated these barriers successfully.
How do you see their functioning? Are they valuable? What types of communications, in your opinion, should they govern?
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly a difficult subject, as we all know how important general communication is. And especially as a country who believes so strongly in freedom of speech we believe everyone should have access to communicating. But its an interesting idea to think about how you must have some governing control over communication- so that everyone can have access. And with that the purpose of freedom of speech is to be able to fight wrongful governing.
So yes, I do think they are valuable, I think we need some sort of system and control.
"The absences of a system which enables timely information to be sent and received endangers a sense of isolation and frustration,... this cannot but undermine the process of development."
China now controlling peoples internet usage seems ridiculous to me now- but its essentially the same idea as controlling radio frequencies, or satellites systems.
I have never considered what a feat it must be just to be able to give people the ability to communicate with someone all the way across the world. Even among wars, gas prices, and all the other things the world fights about. So to answer the question I guess I believe that all forms of communication should be some what controlled and regulated. I have no idea how they should be distributed- as I know there would never be a fair or right way of doing it. But I believe they should be governed.