This post is a follow-up to make some points about Al Gore and the Atari Democrat’s involvement in the success of the Internet and how political leadership is needed for technological innovation and implementation. What is particularly needed is to draw lessons for future infrastructure, open-source software, and other enabling systems of innovation, social connectedness, and civic-minded entrepreneurship. These include smart energy grids, mobility networks, healthcare systems, e-commerce platforms, and crypto-blockchain exchanges.

The story of Al Gore “inventing” the Internet started after CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed the Vice-President in 1999 and gained traction during the 2000 Presidential campaign against George W. Bush. The accusation circulated that Gore claimed he “invented the Internet,” and the phrase was used to tag the Vietnam vet and Vice President as a “liar” and someone who couldn’t be trusted. The issue says a lot about how election campaigns operate, the role of science and technology in the economy, and especially about the impact of governance and statecraft in economic and technological development. Here is what he actually said:

Of course, the most controversial part of this interview about Vice President Gore’s plans to announce his presidential candidacy was this statement, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” That actual quote was turned into “inventing the Internet” and was used against him in the 2000 presidential elections. The meanings are quite different.

“Inventing” suggests a combination of technical imagination and physical manipulation usually reserved for engineers. We do after all, want our buildings to remain upright and our tires to stay on our cars as we ride down the road. To “create” has a much more flexible meaning, indicating more of an art or a craft. There was no reason to say he invented the Internet except to frame it in a way that suggested he designed it technically, which does sound implausible.

Gore never claimed engineering prowess but could never adequately counter this critique. Gore would win the popular vote in 2000 but failed in his bid for the Presidency. The Supreme Court ruled he had lost Florida’s electoral votes in a close and controversial election in the “Sunshine” state. It’s hard to say how much this particular meme contributed to the loss, but the “inventing” narrative stuck and has persisted in modern politics in subtle ways.

The controversy says more about how little we understand innovation and technological development and how impoverished our conversations have been about developing data networks and information technologies. The history of information technologies, particularly communications networking, has been one interplay between technical innovation, market dynamics, and intellectual leadership that guides policy actions, including military and research funding.

The data networking infrastructure, undoubtedly the world’s largest machine, required a set of political skills, both collective and individualized, to be implemented. In addition to the engineering skills that created the famed data packets and their TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol) protocols, political skills were needed for the funding, the regulatory changes, and the global power needed to guide the international frameworks that shape what is now often called Information and Communications Technologies (ICT). These frameworks included key developments at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Al Gore got support from those generally considered the “real inventors” of the Internet. While Republicans continued to ridicule and “swiftboat” Gore for trying to claim he “invented the Internet,” many in the scientific community including the engineers who designed the Internet, verified Gore’s role. Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf acknowledged Gore’s initiatives as both a Congressman and Senator.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s.

But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. – Vint Cerf

Senator Gore was heavily involved in sponsoring legislation to research and connect supercomputers. Gore was an important member of the “Atari Democrats.” Along with Senator Gary Hart, Robert Reich, and other Democrats, they pushed forward “high tech” ideas and legislation for funding and research. The term’s meaning varied, but “Atari Democrat” generally referred to a pro-technology and pro-free trade social liberal Democrat.

Atari was a successful arcade game, home game console, and software company in the 1970s. Started by Nolan Bushnell, it gave a start to Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, among others. The term began to stick to some Democrats around 1982 and generally linked them to the Democrats’ Greens and an emerging “neo-liberal” wing. It also suggested they were “young moderates who saw investment and “high technology” as an answer and complement to the New Deal.” [1]

The New York Times discussed the Atari Democrats and tensions that emerged during the 1980s between the traditional Democratic liberals and the Atari Democrats. The latter attempted to find a middle ground on the economy and international affairs with the Republicans, while the former courted union workers, many of whom had shifted to Reagan and the Republicans.[2]

One of the emerging issues of the time was the trade deficit with Japan, whose cars and electronics were making significant inroads into the US economy. Gore and other Democrats were particularly concerned about losing the race for artificial intelligence. The Japanese “Fifth Generation” AI project was launched in 1982 by the country’s Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), which had a reputation at the time for guiding Japan’s very successful export strategy.

Known as the national Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) project, the AI project was carried out by ICOT, (later AITRG), project, the AI project was carried out by ICOT (later AITRG), part of the Japan Information Processing Development Corporation (JIPDEC), the Advanced IT Research Group (AITRG), a research institute that brought in Japanese computer manufacturers (JCMs), and a few other electronics industry firms. A primary US concern was that the combination of government involvement and the Keiretsu corporate/industrial structure of the Japanese political economy would give them a significant advantage in advanced computing innovations.

Congress was concerned about the competition over high-speed processors and new software systems that were recognized at the time as crucial components in developing many new military armaments, especially the space-based “Star Wars” missile defense system that President Reagan had proposed as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Any system of satellites and weaponry forming a defensive shield against nuclear attack would need advanced microprocessors and supercomputing capabilities. It would require artificial intelligence (AI).

The likely vehicle for this research was the National Science Foundation (NSF), the brainchild of Vannevar Bush, who managed Science and Technology for the US during World War II. That included the Manhattan Project that created the Atomic Bomb. The NSF was formed during the 1950s with established research areas in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. In 1962, it set up its first computing science program within its Mathematical Sciences Division. At first, it encouraged the use of computers in each of these fields, and later, it provided a general computing infrastructure, including setting up university computer centers in the mid-1950s that would be available to all researchers. In 1968, the Office of Computing Activities began subsidizing computer networking. They funded some 30 regional centers to help universities efficiently use scarce computer resources and timesharing capabilities.

In 1984, a year after the military institutionalized TCP/IP, the NSF created the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing, whose mandate was to create several supercomputing centers around the US. [2] Over the next year, five centers were funded by the NSF:

General Atomics — San Diego Supercomputer Center, SDSC
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign — National Center for Supercomputing Applications, NCSA
Carnegie Mellon University — Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center, PSC
Cornell University — Cornell Theory Center, CTC
Princeton University — John von Neumann National Supercomputer Center, JvNC

However, it soon became apparent that they would not adequately serve the scientific community. Gore began to support high-performance computing and networking projects, particularly the  National Science Foundation Authorization Act, where he added two amendments, one calling for more research on the “Greenhouse Effect” affecting climate change and the other calling for investigating future options for communications networks for connecting research computers. This Computer Network Study Act would specifically examine the requirements for data transmission capabilities conducted through fiber optics, data security, and software capability. The NSFNET’s decision to choose TCP/IP in 1985 as the protocol for the planned National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET) would pave the way for the Internet.

In the Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986, Gore proposed to direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy (the Office) to study critical issues and options regarding communications networks for supercomputers at universities and Federal research facilities in the United States and required the Office to report the results to the Congress within a year. The proposal was attached to the Senate Bill S. 2184: National Science Foundation Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, but it was never passed.

Still, a report was produced that pointed to the potential role of the NSF in networking supercomputers, and in 1987, the NSF agreed to manage the NSFNET backbone with Merit and IBM. In October 1988, Gore sponsored additional legislation for “data superhighways” in the 100th Congress. S.2918 National High-Performance Computer Technology Act of 1988 and later H.R.3131 – National High-Performance Computer Technology Act of 1989 was sponsored by Rep. Doug Walgren to amend the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. It directed the President, through the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (Council), to create a National High-Performance Computer Technology Plan and to fund a 3 Gigabit backbone network for the NSFNET.

It paved the way for S.272 High-Performance Computing and the National Research and Education Network (1991-1992) sponsored by Al Gore that passed and was signed by President George H.W. Bush on December 9, 1991. Often called the Gore Bill, it led to the development of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and the funding of the National Research and Education Network (NREN).

The Gore Bill began a discussion of the “Information Superhighway” that enticed cable, broadcast, telecommunications, satellite, and wireless companies to start developing their digital strategies. It also provided the groundwork for Gore’s international campaign for a Global Information Infrastructure (GII) that would lead to the relatively seamless and cheap data communications of the World Wide Web.

Its $600 million appropriation also funded the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, where graduate student Marc Andreessen and others created Mosaic, the early Web browser that became Netscape. The Netscape IPO started the Internet’s commercial boom of the 1990s.

As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Gore held hearings on these issues. During a 1989 hearing colloquy with Dr. Craig Fields of ARPA and Dr. William Wulf of NSF, Gore solicited information about what constituted a high-speed network and where technology was headed. He asked how much sooner NSFnet speed could be enhanced 30-fold if more Federal funding was provided. During this hearing, Gore made fun of himself during an exchange about high-speed networking speeds: “That’s all right. I think of my [1988] presidential campaign as a gigaflop.” [The witness had explained that “gigaflop” referred to one billion floating point operations per second.]

Al Gore is interesting because he has been a successful legislator and a mover of public opinion on climate change and the global Internet. He can take credit for much of the climate change discussion. He has worked hard to bring the topic to the public’s attention, mobilize action on markets for carbon credits, and accelerate developments in alternative energy. His actions and tactics are worth studying as we need more leaders, perhaps “Atari Democrats,” who can create positive futures rather than obsessing about tearing down what we have.

Summary

The transition of the Internet from a military network to a global infrastructure was shaped by key political and technological influences. This article examines the role of Al Gore and the “Atari Democrats” in fostering Internet development through policy, funding, and legislative initiatives.

The notion that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the Internet” originated from a mischaracterization of his 1999 CNN interview, where he stated, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” This phrase was misinterpreted and politicized during the 2000 presidential election. Gore never asserted engineering credit but played a significant role in promoting the early legislative framework supporting the Internet’s expansion.

Al Gore’s contributions were validated by key Internet pioneers, such as Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, who acknowledged his leadership in recognizing the importance of high-speed networking and supercomputing for economic and educational development. Gore’s legislative efforts date back to the 1970s, when he advocated for advanced computing and communication networks, influencing the development of NSFNET, which became the foundation of the modern Internet.

The “Atari Democrats,” including Gore, were a faction of the Democratic Party in the 1980s that focused on technological innovation, economic growth, and global competitiveness. They sought to leverage advancements in computing and networking to maintain U.S. leadership in technology. Concerns about Japan’s artificial intelligence (AI) advancements in the 1980s further motivated U.S. policymakers to invest in high-performance computing.

Key legislative milestones include:

The 1986 Supercomputer Network Study Act, which promoted research on networking supercomputers.

The National High-Performance Computer Technology Act of 1988, which aimed to develop a national research and education network.

The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (commonly called the “Gore Bill”), which laid the foundation for the modern Internet by expanding the NSFNET backbone and influencing commercial Internet growth.

Gore’s leadership extended to advocating for a “Global Information Infrastructure,” emphasizing digital connectivity and international collaboration worldwide. His work not only contributed to the technological expansion of the Internet but also played a role in shaping public awareness of climate change and the importance of sustainability in innovation.

The history of the Internet highlights the interplay between technical expertise, political vision, and regulatory frameworks. Gore’s influence demonstrates the necessity of political leadership in fostering technological advancements that benefit society.

Citation APA (7th Edition)

Pennings, A.J. (2022, Jul 09) Al Gore, Atari Democrats, and the “Invention” of the Internet. apennings.com https://apennings.com/how-it-came-to-rule-the-world/al-gore-atari-democrats-and-the-invention-of-the-internet/

Notes

[1] E. J. Dionne, Special to The New York Times. WASHINGTON TALK; Greening of Democrats: An 80’s Mix of Idealism And Shrewd Politics. The New York Times, 14 June 1989, www.nytimes.com/1989/06/14/us/washington-talk-greening-democrats-80-s-mix-idealism-shrewd-politics.html. Accessed April 24th, 2019.
[2] Wayne, Leslie. Designing a New Economics for the “Atari Democrats.” The New York Times, 26 Sept. 1982, www.nytimes.com/1982/09/26/business/designing-a-new-economics-for-the-atari-democrats.html.

Linked References (APA 7th Edition)

Pennings, A. J. (2022). How “Star Wars” and the Japanese Artificial Intelligence (AI) Threat led to the Internet Japan. apennings.com. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/how-it-came-to-rule-the-world/how-star-wars-and-the-japanese-artificial-intelligence-ai-threat-led-to-the-internet-japan/

Pennings, A. J. (2022). NSFNET and the Atari Democrats. apennings.com. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/how-it-came-to-rule-the-world/how-star-wars-and-the-japanese-artificial-intelligence-ai-threat-led-to-the-internet-part-iii-nsfnet-and-the-atari-democrats/

Blitzer, W. (1999). Inventing the Internet [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/HpMgne-X-Ns?t=689

Cerf, V. (2015). The Role of Al Gore in the Development of the Internet. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31450389

New York Times. (1989, June 14). Greening Democrats: 80’s Mix Idealism & Shrewd Politics. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/14/us/washington-talk-greening-democrats-80-s-mix-idealism-shrewd-politics.html

New York Times. (1982, September 26). Designing a New Economics for the Atari Democrats. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/26/business/designing-a-new-economics-for-the-atari-democrats.html

Stanford University. (1982). The Japanese Fifth Generation AI Project. Stanford Digital Repository. Retrieved from https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:wt917by4830/wt917by4830.pdf

ScienceDirect. (1993). Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS). ScienceDirect Journal. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167739X93900038

National Science Foundation (NSF). (1985). NSFNET’s Decision to Choose TCP/IP. First Monday. Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/799/708

U.S. Congress. (1991). High-Performance Computing and the National Research and Education Network Act. Congress.gov. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/272/all-info#latestSummary-content

Wikipedia. (n.d.). National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Supercomputing_Applications

Pennings, A. J. (2022). Contending Information Superhighways. apennings.com. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/global-communications/contending-information-superhighways/

Pennings, A. J. (2022). Engineering TCP/IP Politics and the Enabling Framework of the Internet. apennings.com. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/telecom-policy/engineering-tcp-ip-politics-and-the-enabling-framework-of-the-internet/

Pennings, A. J. (2022). The Netscape IPO and the Internet’s commercial boom. apennings.com. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/democratic-political-economies/from-new-deal-to-green-new-deal-part-3-its-the-infrastructure-stupid/

Share

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Anthony J. Pennings, PhD is a Professor at the State University of New York, South Korea. Previously, he taught at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas and was on the faculty of New York University from 2002-2012. He began his teaching career at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand and was a Fellow at the East-West Center in Hawaii in the 1990s.

Category: democratic political economies, digital destruction, digital media economics, disruption, how IT came to rule the world, science and technology studies, telecom policy and net neutrality
Tags: Al Gore > Artificial Intelligence (AI) > Atari Democrats > Fifth Generation > Netscape IPO > NSF > NSFNET

U.S. Internet Policy, Part 6: Net Neutrality, Broadband Infrastructure and the Digital Divide

Posted on | June 4, 2022 | No Comments

In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Internet proved to be more critical than ever. Parents telecommuted to work, kids telelearned at home, and streaming media services entertained both. Sick people began to use telemedicine instead of visiting the doctor or hospital. Many people applied for jobs online. Families also embraced the relative safety and convenience of e-commerce delivering commodities to the home.

Yet broadband services in the US were often not available, affordable, or up to the task of allowing all the people in a home to access the bandwidth needed. Previously I examined the decline of ISPs and the dominance of traditional telcos over broadband. Also, I wrote about the Trump’s administration’s support for ending net neutrality by the FCC. This post looks at the plans to increase funding for broadband infrastructure in the US and list some of the challenges facing the Biden Administration’s Internet policy.

The digital divide proved to be more consequential than ever as the K-shaped recovery took shape, exacerbating income divisions. The divide has been particularly stressful on American families as schools and other activities for kids closed down during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some 20 million Americans had none, or very slow Internet service. while another 100 million could not afford broadband.

Inequalities were deepened by the types of jobs affected, as contact jobs in service industries were particularly hard hit while more professional jobs that could be conducted online did well. Also, financial assets continued to appreciate due to the Federal Reserve’s low-interest rates, and quantitative easing kept mortgages cheap and raised home prices.

During his first 100 days, Biden proposed a $2.25 trillion infrastructure package focused on updating transportation infrastructure as well as funding to fight climate change and other provisions to prop up American families. It has also incorporated the The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act introduced by US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Co-chair of the Senate Broadband Caucus, and House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) in early 2021. This plan to modernize underserved communities involved:

– $80 billion to deploy high-speed broadband infrastructure;
– $5 billion for a related secured loan program; and a
– New office within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to monitor and ensure transparency in these projects.

In early November 2021, the House passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act bill 223-202 allocating over US$1 trillion in spending for much-needed infrastructure, with $579 billion in new spending, including US$65 billion for broadband.

The Senate had organized and passed the bill in the summer but it was held up in the House of Representatives. The House progressives wanted the bill tied to a third phase of the Build Back Better program with increased social spending for healthcare, new housing, and climate change. Eventually, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi organized enough votes to pass the measure independently and President Biden signed the bill on November 15, 2021.

The infrastructure bill allocates money to three major areas: direct payments to consumers to pay for broadband services, support for municipal networks, including those in tribal areas, and subsidies for major companies to build out more broadband infrastructure such as fiber optics lines and wireless base stations. The money is destined for the states who can demonstrate groups in need.

It allocates $14 billion to help low-income Americans pay for service at about $30 a month. President Biden announced progress in the Affordable Connectivity Program, an extension and revision of the Emergency Broadband Benefit in the spring of 2022.

The digital divide emerged as a much-needed policy issue again due to the priorities of the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in education and work. More and better access, especially in rural areas became a high priority. Major broadband providers have organized to take advantage of infrastructure spending and comply with the administrations concerns to provide $30 monthly broadband subsidies for eligible households.

Several issues linger in the public’s consciousness depending on media attention. Some have come to the forefront of public scrutiny. These include:

– Even more, better, and cheaper broadband access through mobile, satellite, and wireline facilities, especially in rural areas. Broadband strategies must also consider the implications of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network.

Also, we should be looking at a wider range of Internet issues such as:

– Antitrust concerns about cable and telco ISPs, including net neutrality. [1]
– Privacy and the collection of behavioral data by platforms to predict, guide, and manipulate online user actions.
– Section 230 reform for Internet platforms and content producers, including assessing social media companies’ legal responsibilities for user-generated content.
– Security issues, including ransomware and other threats to infrastructure.
– Deep fakes, memes, and other issues of misrepresentation, including fake news.
– eGovernment and digital money, particularly the role of blockchain and cryptocurrencies as the Internet moves to Web 3.0.

Citation APA (7th Edition)

Pennings, A.J. (2022, Jun 4). U.S. Internet Policy, Part 6: Broadband Infrastructure and the Digital Divide. https://apennings.com/telecom-policy/u-s-internet-policy-part-6-broadband-infrastructure-and-the-digital-divide/

Share

Notes

[1] Newman, R. (2016). The Debate Nobody Knows: Network Neutrality’s Neoliberal Roots and a Conundrum for Media Reform. International Journal of Communication, 10, 5969–5988.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

---

Anthony J. Pennings, Ph.D. is Professor of the Department of Technology and Society, State University of New York, Korea. From 2002-2012 was on the faculty of New York University. Previously, he taught at Victoria University in New Zealand where he studied the changes in their telecommunications industry. He researched also telecommunications issues at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii and was associated with the Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC). He keeps his American home in Austin, Texas.

Category: creative industries, digital media economics, educational innovations, smart new deal, telecom policy and net neutrality
Tags: Affordable Internet for All Act > broadband policy > Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act > Net Neutrality > Starlink > The Accessible > Title II Net Neutrality Rules

Analyzing YouTube Channels

Posted on | May 2, 2022 | No Comments

The video capabilities of the Internet have made possible a new era of media analysis. The traditions of film and television can be brought to the new online media, including YouTube. The challenge will be to both apply traditional media analysis as well as suggest new modes of televisual criticism for this relatively new medium.[1]

This post reviews some of the techniques used in cinematic and television production and suggests a strategy to analyze YouTube channels based on work in my Visual Rhetoric and IT class. It uses a semiotic (study of meaning) framework to examine the channel imagery (mise-en-scène) and editing (montage) to determine what might make such videos successful. It applies denotative and connotative strategies to describe the meaning-making practices with vocabulary and explain what YouTube creators do to inform/entertain the audience.[2]

Story-telling is an important consideration. Who is telling what story, and how? What narrative devices are being used? How does it engage the audience? This channel Lessons from the Screenplay (LFTS) discuses the narrative of how the new James Bond was introduced in 2006. Note who is speaking, whether you actually see them, and how the story is being told.

What are the main signifying practices that make the YouTube channel a success? A semiotic approach looks closely at the details visible in the video (denotation). It then connects the content with connotative meanings such as social myths and narratives. These details would include various “signs” such as indexical metrics, mainly subscribers, views, likes, and the money YouTubers make. It also looks at the typographies, logos, and other meaning-making practices, such as camera pictures, and how those images are spliced together.

The shot continues to be the major unit of analysis, reflecting the relationship between the camera and the scene. The primary visual grammar holds for the most part – establishing shot (LS), medium shot (MS), closeup (CU). The wider shot creates a meaningful context for the tighter images that provide detail and usually heightened emotion. The smartphone now offers an extraordinary high-quality camera for single shots or high-definition video that can get YouTube channelers started.

Ask more about the mise-en-scene. What do you seen in the image? The lighting? The props? The backgrounds? The special effects (FX)? Is a drone used for birds-eye shots? How is the camera used to create the shot – zooms, pans, tilts. And why? What is the motivation or reason for the technique? Who is doing the shooting? What camera techniques are being used? And why?

A bit more challenging is the editing. Applications like iMovie or just hiring someone on Fiverr.com have been helpful for YouTube channelers. The analytical challenge is to keep up with the vocabulary and understanding what the montage is doing in terms of “building” meaning in the narrative.

A narrative is a series of connected events edited in chronological significance. Montage editing can include parallel editing, flashbacks in time, and flash forwards in time as well. What about the montage is noteworthy? What is the pace of editing? What transitions are being used – and once again, what is the motivation?

Ask what drives the narrative. Narration asks who is the storyteller? Who is the narrator? Are they like the anchor in a news program? What is the mode of address: voice-over, talking to the camera, or a combination? Do we see him or her? Is it combined with a voice-over? Or is it all told from a voice of anonymous authority? -the voice of “God” booming over the montage of images.

Also relevant are the microeconomics of the channel and the overall political economy of YouTube. Understanding how YouTube channels make money either through Adsense, brand arrangements, and, more recently, patronage helps understand a channel’s messaging. In the latter, individuals and organizations become “patreons” by pledging to support a channel financially, including smaller payments of gratitude at websites such as buy me a coffee.

Recommendation engines are a key to understanding viewer captivity in YouTube. Using a sophisticated computer algorithm and data collection system, it finds content related to your search or the content you are watching. These computer programs reduce what could become complex search and decision processes to just a few recommendations. It lists a series of video thumbnails based on metadata from the currently viewed video and information gathered about your past viewings and searches.

In February 2005, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim established YouTube in San Bruno, California. YouTube has since become the second-most visited website worldwide with 14 billion monthly views. Only Google, from the same parent company, Alphabet, has more. By 2022, almost 5 billion videos were watched on YouTube every single day, and 694,000 hours of video are streamed on YouTube each minute. More than half of those YouTube views are seen on mobile devices.

This particular form of YouTube analysis asks: What signifying practices make the YouTube channel a success?[3] It applies the denotative and connotative semiotic methodologies to language (describe) and explains what creators do in their videos to educate and/or entertain the audience. This process trains students to understand what techniques are used and their impact. Hopefully, this also contributes to the growing YouTube Studies area in academia.

Citation APA (7th Edition)

Pennings, A.J. (2022, May 2) Analyzing YouTube Channels. apennings.com https://apennings.com/media-strategies/analyzing-youtube-channels/

Share

Notes

[1] Pennings, A. (2020, Feb 2). YouTube Meaning-Creating (and Money-Creating) Practices. Retrieved from https://apennings.com/media-strategies/youtube-meaning-creating-practices/ Accessed May 1, 2022.
[2] Our class uses a series of web pages by David Chandler to learn basic televisual grammar and vocabulary, semiotics and signs, as well as denotation, connotation and myth. His book Semiotics: The Basics is also very useful.
[3] According to Karol Krol, there are several features or qualities that make a YouTube channel successful: continuous posting, using an angle, content quality, and content that is international.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

---

Anthony J. Pennings, PhD is a professor at the Department of Technology and Society, State University of New York, Korea and the Undergraduate Program Director for a BS in Technological Systems Management. Before joining SUNY, he was on the faculty of New York University where he created and co-managed the BS in Digital Communications and Media. He began teaching cinema studies at the University of Hawaii as a PhD student at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Category: meaning makers, media strategies, mobile technologies, multimedia, political economy of media, social media, technologies of meaning, visual literacy and rhetoric
Tags: Meaning-making practices > mise-en-scène > montage > Narrative theory > Semiotics > YouTube Studies

Wireless Charging Infrastructure for EVs: Snack and Sell?

Posted on | April 22, 2022 | No Comments

I recently chaired the defense of a PhD dissertation on patents for electric vehicle (EV) charging. Soonwoo (Daniel) Chang, with his advisor, Dr. Clovia Hamilton, did a great job mapping trends associated with the technology patents central to wireless electric charging, including resonant induction power transmission (RIPT).[1] The research got me interested in exploring more about the possibilities of wireless charging as part of my Automatrix series, especially since the US government is investing billions of dollars in developing electric charging infrastructure throughout the country.

This post discusses some of the issues related to wireless charging of EVs. Cars, but also buses, vans, and long-haul trucks are increasingly using electric batteries for locomotion instead of petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines (ICE). It suggests that wireless charging infrastructure be considered that can allow EVs to partially replenish their batteries (“snack”) and in some cases sell electricity back to the grid. Currently, not many EV original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are designing their automobiles for wireless charging. Why not?

Most likely, OEMs are quite aware of what they need to succeed in the short term. Tesla, for example, has developed an EV charging infrastructure viable for personal autos using cables that plug into a vehicle. But we should also be wary of some of the limitations of plug-in chargers and prepare to build a more dynamic infrastructure that would allow charging in multiple locations and without getting out of the vehicle. These are some of my speculations, and they do not necessarily reflect the results of the soon-to-be Dr. Chang, whose research sparked a lot of my thinking.

You may have used wireless charging for your smartphone. It’s helpful to get a quick charge without dealing with plugs and wires. Inductive charging has some limitations though. While you can play music or a podcast, or talk over a speaker mic, it’s typically immobile. Your phone also needs to be very close to the charging device, its coils aligned properly, and it gets hot. It’s generally not that energy-efficient either, often losing more than 50% of its electricity while charging. With several devices connected in nearly every home, the losses can add up, putting strain on a community’s electrical grid.

In EV wireless charging, a receiver with a coiled wire is placed underneath the vehicle and connects to the battery. This “near field” charging requires that the vehicle be near a similar charging coil. The receiver needs to come near a charging plate on the ground to transmit the energy.

However, advances in magnetic resonance technologies have increased the distance and energy efficiencies involved in wireless charging of EVs. Power transfer is increased by electromagnetically tuning the devices to each other with a magnetic flux, allowing convenient replenishing of a vehicle’s battery. Electric devices generally have conductive wires in a coil shape that maintain stability for the instrument by resisting or storing the flow of current, initially. They are classified by the frequency of their current that flows through it that consists of direct current (DC), audio frequency (AF), and radio frequency (RF). These frequencies can be managed and directed to transfer power over a short distance to another electrical coil. They are not radio waves or emit ionizing radiation that have sufficient energy to detach electrons, so they appear to be relatively safe.

WiTricity for example, uses frequencies around 85 kHz to tune the two coils and expand the charging range from a few millimeters to tens of centimeters. The Massachusetts company has spearheaded the development of this technology and has opened up many possibilities, particularly its use in the public sphere. This may also include dynamic charging that allows a vehicle to charge while moving. See the below video about WiTricity:

It’s no secret that charging issues are a limiting factor for EV diffusion. Drivers of ICE vehicles have resigned themselves to getting out of their cars, organizing a payment, inserting the nozzle into the gas tank, and waiting patiently for a few minutes while the liquid hydrocarbons poured into their cars. Unfortunately, EV owners are still dealing with a lack of available charging locations as well as challenges with nozzle standards, payment systems, long lines, and lengthy charging periods. Currently, most EV owners in the US charge at home with L2 chargers that can readily be bought online or at a Home Depot. EV owners in urban areas need to find other locations, such as parking garages and may face fines for staying too long.

Standards both permit and restrict technological solutions. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) published the J2954 standard in 2020 for wireless charging with three wireless charging levels — WPT1 (3.7 kW), WPT2 (7 kW), and WPT3 (11 kW) for transfer up to 10 inches. These generally may take up to three and a half hours to fully charge.[2]

Yes, these are not impressive numbers given the competition from high-end EV superchargers. Even the EVgo chargers at my local Walmart in Austin have several standards (J-1772, CHAdeMO, CCS/SAE) that charge from 14.4 – 50 kW.[1] Note that EVs have onboard chargers with varying acceptance rates (in kW) that convert AC electricity found in homes to the DC a car battery needs to store. A Chevy Volt with 3.3 kW acceptance will not charge as fast as a Telsa Model S with 10 kW no matter where it is plugged. Other factors include charging cables that can often be awkward to handle. The experimental charging “snake” that reaches out and automatically finds and connects to the auto’s electric nozzle doesn’t seem to be viable yet. So, charging is a limiting factor for EV adoption success.

The strategy behind wireless charging will probably focus more on what WiTricity has coined “power snacking” than full meals of electricity. Snacking is actually better for your battery as longevity improves if you don’t let the battery capacity run down to below 20% or recharge it to 100 percent. Keeping the electric ions in equilibrium across the battery reduces strain and increases the number of charge cycles before degrading occurs.

The snacking can be done by a waiting taxi, a bus stopping for a queue of passengers, a quick stop at a convenience store, and perhaps EVs waiting at a red light. Shopping centers are likely to “capture” customers with charging stalls, especially if they can reduce costs by having micro-grids with solar panels on roofs.

Many countries have tested infrastructure for charging EVs in motion, although this will require substantially more investment. “Dynamic” wireless charging appears to be feasible but comes with high costs as it needs to be embedded in existing infrastructure such as bridges and highways.

The major issues for wireless charging are the infrastructure changes needed and the OEM buy-in. Wireless charging will require more planning and construction than the current charger station. They will also require monitoring and payment applications and systems. Most importantly, they will require electricity – and without significant capacity coming from renewable sources, the purpose will be mainly defeated. Vehicle manufacturers will need to include the wireless charging pads and ensure safety. On the positive side, they can use smaller batteries for many models as constant recharging will reduce range anxiety.

Wireless technologies have been successfully tested for “vehicle to grid” (V2G) transmission. This innovation means a car or truck can sell electricity back to the grid. These might be particularly useful for charging locations off the grid or places challenging to connect—for instance, charging pads at a red light. So we might see a “snack or sell” option in future cars. The prices are likely to vary by time, location, and charging speed, but this setup will present some arbitrage opportunities.

The arbitrage economics are based on ‘valley filling’ when EVs charge at low-demand hours, often overnight, and ‘peak shaving’ when an EV transmits stored energy back into the grid during high-demand hours. So, for example, a vehicle charging at home overnight with cheaper grid electricity or excess from solar panels can sell it on the way to work or at the office parking lot. You might not get rich, but considering the money currently spent on diesel or petrol, it could still help your wallet.

Effective infrastructure like highways or the Internet provides indirect network effects, allowing different entities to use the system and expanding that network’s possibilities. The Global Positioning System (GPS), for example, uses some 27 satellites that transmit pulsed time codes. These signals allowed multiple devices to be invented that triangulate and compute a latitude, longitude, and altitude position to provide different location services. In this case, an effective wireless charging infrastructure enables many different vehicles to use the electrical network. A lot of the wireless charging infrastructure will be done by corporate fleets like Amazon, Best Buy, and Schindler Elevator. Hopefully, the US Post Office will catch up.

However, the US government made a down payment on EV charging stations in the 2021 infrastructure bill. Legislation targeted $15 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, for “a national network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers along highways and in rural and disadvantaged communities.” It was cut in half to $7.5 billion to provide much needed funding for electric bus fleets for schools and municipalities.[3] Should future infrastructure spending target wireless charging?

Once we move beyond the internal combustion engine (ICE) in vehicles, you will see a lot more flexibility in design of autos, buses, vans, trams, etc. They require fewer parts and are easier to construct. We see it on the lower end with electric bikes and even those controversial electric scooters. New forms of electric autonomous trolleys and vans are necessary to revive urban transportation in a quiet and sustainable way. All these changes in mobility will require changes in the electrical infrastructure.

The term “Smart Mobility” has emerged as an important sociological and technical construct. The city of Austin, Texas:

Smart Mobility involves deploying new technology to move people and goods through the city in faster, safer, cleaner, more affordable and more equitable ways. Our mission is “to lead Austin toward its mobility future through meaningful innovation, collaboration, and education.”

Smart devices have expanded to smart vehicles. Autonomy is becoming prevalent and some cars and trucks offer full self-driving options (FSD), with or without a passenger. Wireless charging is central to this process. Auto-valet services, for example, will allow your car to drop you off and park itself, likely at a stall that can provide charging. Who is going to get out to plug it in?

Notes

[1] Gaining Competitive Advantage with a Performance-Oriented Assessment using Patent Mapping and Topic Trend Analysis: A Case for Comparing South Korea, United States and Europe’s EV Wireless Charging Patents. A 2022 PhD Dissertation by Soonwoo (Daniel) Chang for Stony Brook University in New York. He can be reached at sdchang8@gmail.com

[2] A kWh is a 1,000 Watts of electricity. Named after James Watt, the inventor of the steam engine, a watt is the unit of electrical power equal to one ampere under the pressure of one volt. The time it takes to charge a car depends on both the car’s acceptance rate and the amount of electricity sent by the charging station. Volts x Amps – Wattage.

[3] Known officially as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, it authorized over half a trillion dollars in spending for airports, bridges, broadband, rail, roads, and water systems. It also included up to $108 billion in spending for public transportation such as rail as part of the largest federal investment in public transit in the nation’s history. Another $73 billion was for upgrades to the electrical grid to transmit higher loads while efficiently collecting and allocating energy.

Citation APA (7th Edition)

Pennings, A.J. (2022, Apr 22). Wireless Charging Infrastructure for EVs: Snack and Sell? apennings.com https://apennings.com/mobile-technologies/wireless-charging-infrastructure-for-evs-snack-and-sell/

Share

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

---

Anthony J. Pennings, PhD is a Professor at the Department of Technology and Society, State University of New York, Korea. Before joining SUNY, he taught at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas. Originally from New York, he taught at Marist College and from 2002-2012 was on the faculty of New York University where he taught digital economics and information systems managementand. His first academic job was at Victoria University in New Zealand. He was also a Fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Category: automatrix, mobile technologies, science and technology studies, smart new deal, sustainable development
Tags: dynamic wireless charging > electric vehicles (EVs) > energy snacking > full self-driving options (FSD) > Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act > OEMs > resonant induction power transmission > Smart Grids > smart mobility > WiTricity

« go back — keep looking »