Stuff YOU Should Know
Net Neutrality Ends
Now that Net Neutrality was voted down by Congress, what is going to happen next to your search experience? Credit: satich/123RF
In November, Election Central examined the issue of net neutrality, and what it could mean for consumers like you if the Federal Communication Commission, or FCC, voted to eliminate it. Last week, despite intense opposition from the public and consumer groups, the FCC voted to end net neutrality with the so-called Restoring Internet Freedom order.
But the name of the new legislation is misleading. What net neutrality means, in essence, is that internet service providers, or ISPs, were required to treat all data flowing over the internet the same. Critics say that now that net neutrality has ended, ISPs can technically slow down or even block competitors’ content, or content they don’t agree with.
This change has created a great deal of public concern. Even so, those in favor of ending net neutrality say that the changes won’t make much difference for the average user. They argue that ISPs can’t afford to anger or annoy their customers by interfering with content; if they do, their customers will just switch to another ISP.
But ISPs are corporations. A corporation’s end goal is to make a profit for its shareholders, not to ensure free and open access to information. Ending net neutrality means that customers are largely at the mercy of ISPs. If your ISP chooses to slow down a competitor’s show or block you from seeing certain kinds of content, there are now no legal preventions for this. Like cable television companies, which are also deregulated, they will be free to charge more for some channels, or Web sites, than others.
However, the fight isn’t over yet. Members of Congress have already stated that they will introduce legislation to reinstate net neutrality.
Dig Deeper Imagine that you wish to protest the FCC’s new Restoring Internet Freedom order. Working with a friend, come up with a list of at least three ways that you can make your voice heard. Feel free to use internet resources for suggestions. Which way do you think would be most effective, and why?
The Tale of a Mouse and a Fox
What do Luke Skywalker and Mickey Mouse have in common? If a new business deal goes through, they’ll both be owned by the same company: Disney.
Last Thursday, Disney announced plans to purchase most of 21st Century Fox. The deal comes with a hefty price tag for Disney: about $52.4 billion. But here’s what Disney will get in exchange:
- Fox’s TV studio, which has 36 series currently in production including hits like “The Simpsons,” “Modern Family,” and “This is Us.”
- Fox’s chain of 22 regional cable sports networks.
- The FX and National Geographic cable networks.
- Two huge overseas television-service providers.
The reason for the merger? Disney CEO Robert Iger has stated that the future of television and movie viewing is online. As a result, Disney plans to release two new Netflix-style streaming services by 2019: ESPN Plus, and a second which has not yet been named.
21st Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch, was responsible for releasing classic films such as “The Sound of Music” and the first “Star Wars” movie. Not included in the deal with Disney are Fox News and Fox’s News Corporation, which includes the Wall Street Journal.
The merger isn’t final yet. Antitrust regulators must still examine the deal to make sure it’s legal–that is, to ensure that it doesn’t violate the rules of fair competition. Recently, AT&T tried to buy Time Warner for $85.4 billion: a deal which the Justice Department is currently fighting. However, it’s reported that the president already called Murdoch to congratulate him on the merger, which seems to imply that it’s likely to go through. If it does, it’s likely that other entertainment companies will consider conducting similar mergers in order to remain competitive.
What Do You Think? In your opinion, does combining Disney and 21st Century Fox into a single entertainment company limit competition unfairly? Explain your point of view.
New Island Has Cosmic Significance
A newly-formed island in the middle of the South Pacific may give scientists a better understanding of the history of Mars.
You read that right. The island, called Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai, emerged just three years ago, in December 2014, when a large underwater volcano erupted in the South Pacific. The ash from the volcano combined with the warm ocean water to create a chemical reaction that formed strong rock. The process took about a month, and when it was over, the new island was born. Currently, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai is just one square mile in size and rises about 400 feet above the surface of the ocean. Most islands formed this way last only a few months. But scientists say that Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai could survive for decades.
Related: Click on this link to see a Google Map of the location of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai. Use the map controls to scroll in and out to see the large area around this part of the Pacific Ocean.
So what does all of this have to do with Mars? Scientists believe that Mars once had thousands of volcanoes that erupted underwater as well. Studying Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai provides researchers with a model they can use to figure out things like how deep the water on Mars once was, or how long the planet was wet. Channels carved by rivers across the surface of the planet have proven to scientists that there was once water on Mars, but they are still trying to determine whether the water was frozen or if there were eras in which the water melted and moved freely, and if there were ever standing bodies of water. Examining an underwater volcano here on Earth can help provide some insight into how these geological processes unfolded on Mars.
Dig Deeper Use the map link above and other Internet resources to examine the location of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai in the South Pacific. Based on what you’ve found, why do you think the new island was given this name?
Un-Social Media
Most of us use one form of social media or another. But have you ever stopped to wonder if maybe social media is having a negative impact on your emotional health?
Chances are, you have. Like most everyone, you’ve probably scrolled through your social media feed while having a bad day, and it suddenly seems like everyone is better looking, more popular, and happier than you are. Right?
Several studies have already examined this topic. Unsurprisingly, most of them have found that social media can have a negative impact on our own sense of well-being. But what’s really surprising is that last Friday, Facebook–the largest and most profitable social media company in the world–admitted that its product may be bad for us emotionally, socially, and physically. In a blog post, Facebook examined some recent studies on the topic. These studies have found that people who interact “passively” with social media (scrolling through posts, clicking “like,” clicking on links, posting status updates) also report worsening mental and physical health. On the other hand, people who engage “actively” with the service (commenting and engaging in back-and-forth conversations) can actually see health benefits as a result.
Therefore, the company has announced that it will soon be rolling out some changes to its platform that will encourage more active social interaction between users. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has even said that he will sacrifice profitability if necessary, in order to build a better product for the community.
In the meantime, though: put down your phone, and walk away from Instagram. Your health might depend on it.