Cable Television

In the prompt to write about another technology, I decided to work on cable television, which was done by Taylor Richards, another member of my group.  I found it fitting to do such a topic, since I wrote about television as a whole and even mentioned cable TV in my part of the presentation.  Since cable played a major role in both the expansion and dilution of television, it's fitting for me to expand on the same topic.

I decided to use the same sources for the research as Taylor had, in an attempt to see if there was anything I could expand on while in the same scope that he had done.  There was a lot of detail on the history of cable television, but I want to see if there was anything he wasn't able to include, as well as try and provide more emphasis on the impact.

Cable was introduced in 1948 almost simultaneously in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon as a way to enhance TV signals in mostly remote areas.  Antennas were placed on mountain tops to receive a signal, which was then fed to another antenna that was placed on top of another home.  This was done in rural Pennsylvania by John Walson, an owner of a Mahanoy City General Electric appliance store who is credited with the creation of cable television.  It also innovated the community antenna television (CATV), which is now commonplace in the United States.

Along with connecting television for rural communities, cable was seen as an expansion of television, and by 1952, 70 networks serviced 14,000 subscribers.  In addition, cable also allowed for long-distance signals to be transmitted for miles rather than local stations and signals, which led to 800 networks having 1 million subscribers just ten years later.

Along with the expansion of cable in the 1950's was the space race, which propelled with the Soviet Union launching the first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957.  It played a major role in the development in cable transmissions, as AT&T launched Telstar to transmit signals across the Atlantic Ocean in 1962.  Satellites play a major part in the transmission of cable, as networks like HBO would launch their own satellites in the future.

That would have to wait, however, as the FCC placed restrictions on the transmission and import on long-distance tv signals.  This caused a stop in developing new cable systems for nearly a decade, where deregulation and a change in enforced rules led to a new rise in cable programming.  Money had all but disappeared in the ten years since cable nearly fell apart. When HBO launched its satellite, it allowed for nationwide access to programming, which would be followed up by Ted Turner launching TBS.  As cable television was once again profitable, more people were subscribing to cable than ever.

Upon the passing of the Cable Act in 1984, regulations were loosened to enable the creation of many new networks.  As billions were spent on new wiring and programming, the number of subscribers jumped to 53 million, but rising costs led to concerns on longterm viability for cable. To act on this, Congress issued a law in 1992 that only allowed new cable companies to include wireless cable and direct satellite broadcast.  However, the expansion of cable was not slowed down, as the number of channels grew from 79 to 171 over the course of the next decade.  Many cable packages were offered to give a variety of networks, and 65 million Americans paid for cable by the turn of the century.  In addition, companies invested billions of dollars to build faster fiber optics and build the internet as it is today. 

Since the beginning of the 21st century, cable has expanded to offer on-demand services, and digital services were also being implemented. Starting in 2002, people were using cable to access the internet through Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).  Even with the rise of the internet and streaming services, 93% of television owners also hold a cable subscription today, and the number of channels is still on the rise from 280 in 2002.

The birth and rise of cable can be simultaneously tracked with that of television.  Most of us have paid for cable in our lives, and its vast amount of offerings have allowed us to find content we like.  Cable allowed for the expansion of television, and we likely would not have been as innovated without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walson

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/31741

Blue Skies: A History of Cable Television

https://www.ncta.com/cables-story

https://www.calcable.org/learn/history-of-cable/

EOTO Research

For the EOTO assignment, I focused on the history and impact of the television.  Despite being less than a century old, TV has become an essential part of our lives, as we use it to get the news, learn about the weather, and to entertain ourselves with a wide amount of programming across hundreds of channels.

The first television was created in 1884, as just an electromechanical device that produces monochrome images.  However, September 7th, 1927 really indicates the birth of television, as 21-year-old Philo Farnsworth created the first electronic television.  Farnsworth's development allowed for images to be scanned by electrons, which captured images through radio frequencies that would transmit the image back on to a TV screen.

The first broadcast came just a few months later on January 13th, 1928 in Schenectady, NY.  Local General Electric workers broadcasted rotating images of a Felix the Cat doll for hours to test the equipment.  This station later became WNBC, which eventually grew into an entire network.

In the 1930's, RCA, a dominant radio business that also owned WNBC, invested $50 million in developing electronic television. They ended the decade with televising both the World's Fair and a Princeton-Columbia baseball game, and with a license on Farnsworth's patent, began to sell 5x12 televisions that were known as "the tube."

In the 1940's, less than one percent of households owned a television.  World War II forced a focus in manufacturing weapons rather than televisions.  They cost about $400 at the time, which was worth the average two months' salary in a household.  However, the technology soon improved and TV's were sold at lower prices, and up to one-third of American households owned a television.  Although the decade was slow for television, it was important in creating the major networks that dominated both the screen and airwaves.  The Columbia Broadcasting System (later known as CBS) began airing daily news reports.  When the Supreme Court forced RCA to get rid of one of their networks, the one they lost eventually grew into the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) as they kept the National Broadcasting Company (NBC).


During the 50's and 60's, three national networks were the most often viewed in the United States: ABC, CBS, and NBC.  Each day, families traditionally gathered around to watch the nightly news as well as that day's programming.  Tens of millions of people tuned in to watch the shows and movies that aired on television, which expanded into nightly talk shows and game shows as well.  These shows were funded through the radio profits of the networks, though television quickly became profitable as well.  A sense of unity was brought together in both the household and across the country, as Americans would all be connected through these same shows that ushered in the "Golden Age" of television.  Moments such as Walter Cronkite's report on the JFK Assassination, The Beatles appearing on The Ed Sullivan Show, and the moon landing were all moments that were shared with all of America.

In addition, television had a pivotal role in shaping American politics.  The 1960 Presidential election debates were the first to be aired on television, and viewers noted an old and sweaty Richard Nixon struggling against a young and handsome John F Kennedy.  In addition, footage of the Vietnam War was instrumental in swaying public sentiment against it, with the government not taking too kindly to CBS in particular.

In 1967, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) was founded after it was recommended that a nonprofit station be included to challenge the other three networks in terms of news and education.  Rather than advertising dollars, PBS relies on public donations, government funding, and corporate underwriters.

However, the rise of cable television in the 1980's brought new programming fixated on one subject, which included MTV, ESPN, and CNN.  And with households now owning more than one television, families could watch what they wanted at any time.  This rise in new networks and programming has sort of unglued the binding power that existed when television was dominated by those three main networks.

Along with a change in programming selections, coverage  of news had been largely swayed in the 1990's.  CNN innovated in its Gulf War on-the-ground coverage that updated Americans in real time, and was even used by the government to keep up with events.  In an attempt to challenge cable as well, a lot of tabloid shows and talk shows emerged to attempt to sway viewers.  This was all started by the sensationalism of the OJ Simpson trial.

Innovation was also introduced for television during this period.  During the 80's, cassette players allowed for people to record and re-watch shows, and video games were also transformed by the use of television.  In addition, high definition television, or HDTV, was introduced to allow clearer, high resolution images.  However, televisions of the time could not pick up HDTV, which led to a massive transition from the old bulky TV sets to flat screens, which could also pick up digital transmissions. 

Although televisions are less than a century old, it's hard to ever imagine a time where we didn't use them.  Even with the internet taking hold as the new means of entertainment, television has always been the catalyst for innovation in both programming and news. Trends may change and viewing habits may differ, but television will forever be recognized as a piece of technology that transformed the world. 

A family sitting down to watch television.  The way we view TV today is far different from how it was in the '50's and '60's.  

https://www.reference.com/history/year-did-first-television-come-out-c4ac5ddbb1390c53

https://junior.scholastic.com/issues/2018-19/012819/how-television-changed-america.html

https://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/History%20of%20Television%20page.htm

What are the implications of the Equifax data breach charges?

In 2017, Equifax suffered a data breach that exposed the personal data of over 145 million Americans.  And now, the Department of Justice charged four Chinese men with causing the breach this past week.  Even if these charges turn out to be false, there is still reason to be very concerned about this. 

Over the past few years, organizations such as Facebook and Quest Diagnostics have suffered data breaches that have put the personal information of millions of people in peril.  Hacks and data breaches have become frequent in the past few years, and while outrage ensues after each time, little is being done to prevent them from happening again.  Even though these instances happen more often now, it is still unlikely for anyone you know personally to find your information.  But the fact that our information is (likely) still out there and open for the authorities to see is still concerning. 

What is even more stunning with this was that foreign governments are now doing the targeting of these hacks.  If a foreign adversary can manage to discover the credit scores of individual people, then basically anyone can do the same thing.  Any individual or group can discover our personal information with less surveillance and monitoring than a potential Chinese hacker, as the consequences for the lack of proper defenses against data breaches can be even more far-reaching than we could anticipate. 

In addition, the motives of the people behind these hacks could make these attacks even more frightening than the act itself.  Could China potentially tank the stock market?  Something like the Equifax breach suggests they may try, as both this breach and an economic recession would really cause serious harm to Americans.  In addition, with China facing criticism for their brutal crackdown on protesters in Hong Kong, there is a lot of reason to think the people behind this are even more sinister than we anticipated.  If China is willing to do anything to suppress its own citizens, it's reasonable to think they'd do far worse to any NATO ally.  As the Chinese continue to grow their influence on the world, they might be willing to take more action in gaining leverage on other nations, as suggested by the Equifax data breach. 

The four Chinese researchers, all of whom are alleged to be tied to the country's military, and their charges from this past week.  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-charges-chinese-nationals-010904022.html

How effective will Twitter be in its new fight against election misinformation?

Following the 2016 Presidential election, social media sites faced scrutiny for allowing misinformation to run unfiltered on their platforms.  Since then, they have implemented new rules to fight back against fake news and make sure that they can stop lies from spreading.  With the United States heading in to another Presidential election in November, Twitter has implemented a new feature to their reporting system specifically regarding election misinformation.

This past week, Twitter introduced a new way to report tweets, as posts that include misinformation regarding an election can now be flagged. Twitter's Director of Public Policy, Carlos Mojne, said this was done to keep the conversations healthy and to prevent any content that can discourage or confuse voters.  Twitter took similar measures in India and the UK when they held federal elections last year. 

The new reporting feature, second from the bottom, as well as some of the reasons why a post can be considered misleading about an election.  

This implementation follows Twitter's decision to ban all political advertising on the app, regardless of how true or false it is.  Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey stated that he doesn't want the money of politicians to optimize the feed of voters, and would prefer that they do a better job at messaging instead.  

These decisions have mostly been applauded by users, who haven't been afraid to criticize Twitter and its CEO.  Jack, as he's known by on his Twitter handle, has faced criticism for his hesitancy towards banning the accounts of Nazis and other far-right content in the United States, especially because he already complies with EU laws to ban those users in Europe.  In addition, the reporting system has also faced scrutiny, as users complain that racist, sexist, and other threatening content is not properly dealt with.  For Jack to finally be on the receiving end of some positive words shows that he is doing the right thing here.  

Although there haven't been complaints about it yet, there will likely be some backlash soonover misleading election content not getting removed, especially because primary season has already begun.  In addition, there is controversy with how the political ad ban is being implemented, as companies like Exxon Mobil can still advocate for their political stances without being banned.  Regardless of how it's implemented, Twitter has at least taken the steps necessary to prevent fake news from dominating the election, taking a totally different direction from Facebook.  

Over the past few months, Facebook has reiterated that they will not ban political ads, even if the information in them is totally false.  Mark Zuckerberg has stated that people should still be able to hear of what a candidate has to say, and they can debate the merits on it themselves.  This line of thinking is flawed, as Facebook itself has found efforts to meddle in both past and upcoming elections, so it should not be allowing for politicians to advertise themselves unchecked.  

The idea of how to properly handle campaign ads on social media is not perfectly clear, but Twitter definitely has a better idea of how to handle them than Facebook.  Although their position on a total ban on these kinds of ads is interesting, I honestly disagree to an extent.  Campaigns promoting themselves on social media is a great way for audiences to get to know them, and even if the user feed gets optimized towards a specific candidate, that's more of an issue on optimization rather than someone actually liking a politician.  A lot more people are using the internet and social media rather than watching television nowadays, so turning there is definitely the smarter move for a campaign.  In addition, I do believe that ads should be run on social media, albeit with proper fact-checking before they are promoted.  

The issue with misinformation on social media is how fast it spreads.  If someone with only 12 followers posts a misleading tweet, that probably won't have any impact; if that tweet is retweeted by the President, reporting it won't stop millions of people from seeing it.  Some people may recognize a post for being false, while others may carry doubts, but many will still come to believe it.  If Twitter wants to get serious about stopping election misinformation, it should create a team specifically to monitor that.  If it can be reported in a fast and timely manner, many people will be saved from believing a lie.  However, if it carries on and takes days to report, then it might be too late on a certain issue. 

Twitter has a chance to do a better job this time around, and they have been taking the steps necessary to prevent misinformation.  However, if they don't keep a sharp focus on this issue, all their good intentions may be for nothing.  

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/480728-twitter-rolls-out-feature-letting-users-report-election-misinformation

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/tech/twitter-political-ads-2020-election/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/09/facebook-political-ads-micro-targeting-us-election