Suggestions

The United States provides a free arena for one to explore and make decisions based on individual preferences. Traditionally Americans are projected as ones with total control over what they choose to do and what they choose to view without guidance from an outside source. This arena of freedom of choice can be questioned with the advent of internet marketing. Internet marketing has provided a new way in which companies can direct people to make decisions. All over the internet, websites, search engines and company pages engineer their websites to personalize and relate to the individual person who is viewing the site. For example a search engine, such as Google, will base their searches on the personalized choices that the individual did before. So Google tailors is site to the individuals "preferences."https://www.google.com Another example of this would be the Netflix suggestion box.http://movies.netflix.com This is a box that shows movies that are related to the movies that a viewer watched in the past. These new devices are used to make the consumers life easier but it can be a way in which individuals decisions can be guided. Rather than having a standard internet experience viewers are now provided with guidance tools that influence their decisions on a subconscious level. The question that these internet marketing devises raise is: can this be a step towards losing some form of individuality?   

Senate Hearing on Online Video, Online

C-span has made it possible to view the senate hearing held April 24, 2012 by the Senate Science, Commerce and Transportation Committee in regards to the emerging online video trend. The hearing is focused on understanding what the rapid growth of online video means for US consumers. Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia asks, "How will this disruptive technology, that online viewing will provide, lead to better content and more consumer choice?" Online video services such as Hulu and Netflix provide their customers with a selective viewing choice at a minimal price compared to cable programming. The average price for cable television in the US is somewhere around $90 to $100 per month and the customer is forced to choose a tiered system of channels, usually with a few very popular channels within each increasing price bracket. Online video companies charge around $10 to $20 per month and the viewing choices are left completely up to the customer in the sense that one does not have to choose channel packages with increasing prices and countless needless channels. Therefore I would posit that online video increases the content quality by limiting the useless features and channels that come with cable and all for a fraction of the price to the consumer. Now, the garbage content is still there if the consumer chooses to view it, but it is a more interactive process to retrieve those programs, unlike the linear scrolling of television channels which could lead children to unsavory programming, but the online version doesn't charge extra for 500 channels of totally unwatchable TV.
Barry Diller, chairman of IAC and an investor in Aereo had interesting and poignant remarks regarding online video, one which I will remark on. Mr Diller pointed out that congress needs to be vigilant and protective of the current Internet structure which allows anyone to be a producer and to provide their content directly to the viewer. Mr Diller stresses that no one should be allowed to stand between the individual media producers and their audiences. This is one of the main things that separates the inter net from traditional forms of publication in that an individual can produce a media and self publish it for free, not including access to a computer and to the Internet. The producer does not have to engage with the publishing industry in order to distribute to their audience. That is what Google is for!
These ideas and fore thoughts are excellent topics for the senate to be fielding as they have the power to regulate the Internet and our communication paths, all 500 channels of it.