Geographic Impacts of New Communication Technologies;
Spatial Concentration or Dispersion?
The Role of Telecommunicating on Urban Economics 10/21/97

Jeanne (Geog.350)

There are two distinct positions that must be considered when analyzing the impact of modern telecommunication on urban economics. The actual service field and suppliers (as cable companies are to cable television viewers) is quite removed from the actual telecommunication users who can be anyone from a young child to a business executive with a variety of possibilities in between.

Spatial concentration or centralization is necessary and appropriate for the servicers, designers, and manufacturers of telecommunication networks, products, and training. Having centralized locations for these options will provide the convenience our society has come to expect and demand. If too much hassle is involved in any endeavor it often begins to develop an aura of dissatisfaction and distrust that can stifle the best of ideas.

Yet if our emphasis is solely placed on the use of telecommunication technology by the general public, spatial dispersion or decentralization of the commercial workforce as well as the educational system will inevitably be the result. The "buzz" word being heard today is not telecommunication but a close relative, telecommuting. As technology continues to advance, there will be little need to hassle with the logistics of congregating thousands in minimal facilities requiring constant and expensive maintenance such as on college campuses or in business offices. Telecommuting from home or small, neighborhood facilities will cut overhead and increase profits. And education will become up close and interactive, but no longer personal. This change may give birth to an impersonal society, lacking in compassionate thought, with computerized images as role models and best friends.

I fear this is where our society is headed. Unfortunately, it seems that we have a penchant for overusing certain commodities (and I definitely consider telecommunication a commodity) to our advantage until it is depleted or no longer profitable. We've become a society of users no matter the consequence. Americans just don't seem to know when to stop!

Wed Oct 22 06:34:25 PDT 1997 - In general, I think the extent to which telecommunications/commuting will reduce the physicality of the human situation, as it were, has been vastly overrated.

Telecommunications very basis is physical - components must be guarded from theft, in some environments ISP's face physical interdiction from authoritarian political bodies (ie, China, Iran, or read the article on Vietnam in the latest edition of Wired), and natural disasters are all things that have the potential to bring the 'system' grinding to a halt, on an individual, regional or societal level. Telecommunications may reshape the way in which we work, expose us to new ideas, and perhaps even increase our sense of 'globalness', but telecommunications wont divorce us from our physical surroundings. At least in the foreseeable future. In the Graham/Marvin readings they refer to work done by Wise(1971) which I think is very compelling in this regard - perhaps professor Krumme has it in his collection of scholarly articles...They also refer to Baudrillard, who from what I understand is a communications philosopher, and quite good.
Ben S - 498

Tue Oct 21 14:31:31 PDT 1997 - I was puzzled by the usage "telematics". Does anyone have a read on what this means?) Bill L, 498

I believe this is another mutation of "Infomatics" which is often used to refer to the information side of computer sciences. What would all of you think about starting a collaborative "glossary" for tele-cyber-virtual terminology? G.K.

Hello all, how has everyone's week been? For this discussion I would like to continue the discussion from last weeks class. Continuing the discussion on Telecommunicating, I think it will be a great idea for people to telecommunicate. The idea opens up a vast new era of how people would do their work, but let get a grip on the current times, this idea is still in its beginning stages, even though some people do it now, a majority of people still have to commute to work. The types of jobs like fixing cars, health care, and law enforcement still require people to go (drive, walk, bike) to their place of employment. don't get me wrong though, if someone were to expand the idea of telecommunicating, i would be the first to jump on their "bandwagon," but I just don't see that happening in my lifetime.

The discussion on GIS opened my eyes since that is my concentration within Geography. My opinion of GIS is that it looks like a pyramid. GIS would be on the top of pyramid with all other aspects of Geography below it. GIS feeds on information (attributes) from other sources and stores it for viewers to see. You can also see GIS as a database where information is stored for the purpose of people to access.

If you have any comments for my thoughts on the discussion, please feel free to respond back to me.

Tue Oct 21 08:16:00 PDT 1997 - OK, how do you get paragraph breaks?

HTML tags??
Bill, 498

Yes! Incorporate the tags into your write-up in the comment box. It works. GK

Tue Oct 21 08:14:11 PDT 1997 - Response to George Wilson (and another attempt to try and get paragraph breaks - it didn't work last time, I'll try double carriage returns.)

George, I like your reasoning in the first paragraph of your statement. Info. technology will give people more flexibility and allow them to choose where they live. Cities could evolve a more residential personality that could be very attractive.

You start the third paragraph "If the net stays in it's current form. . ." That is something that is guaranteed not to happen. The next change will be more bandwidth (broadband) through cable TV, ISDN, etc, which will open up new ways for content providers to use the web. (This is a major theme of Bill Gates' book "The Road Ahead.)

You bring up issues of equity in access. I suggest that printing, the telephone, and the television were all elite technologies when they were in their early development, but now they are taken for granted by all in the developed world.
Bill L, 498

Mon Oct 20 18:15:47 PDT 1997 - George from 350 signs on and sez;

I don't see why telecommunications would influence where people choose to live. In the past, high tech sectors were located in large central cities, giving people who worked in those fields an incentive to move there. However, except for research, most high tech industry today involves light manufacturing and services, which can locate basically anywhere. Information technology, which is what most of us are limited to using, is accessible from everywhere, meaning people are not forced to move to the city to get info. Not that they ever were anyway; in the past people outside the central cities merely dealt with larger time lags or more research footwork to get obscure information. They didn't all move to the cities because there was still a market where they were (people everywhere need lawyers, teachers, repairmen, etc.) In this case telecommunications technology doesn't mean people move to or from the cities but rather that they have improved access to info where they already are. People will choose to live in cities, suburbs, farms, etc. with little regard to information access since it will be available anywhere.

With regard to social equality and democracy, the general mood of the populace influences this much more than whatever technology we have today can. Certainly there is increased access to points of view that dissent from the mainstream, but whether or not anybody reads them depends on what people would read anyway. The same goes for mainstream points of view. Nor is there any guarantee for corporations who use the internet to do business; other than the ability to buy a wide variety of things, there's nothing better about buying stuff on the internet vs. buying it at a store. If you can use marketing to draw people to your internet sales sight then the internet could be a very useful sales tool, but there's nothing inherent in the net which will lead to increases in sales.

If the net stays in its current form it could be a very powerful tool for increasing grassroots democracy. Unlike radio and television, where the FCC sells airways to the highest bidder and it takes a lot of startup capital to operate, anyone can put out their own rants on the web. This is what I like most about it; cruising around reading the thoughts of various crazies is much more fun than watching TV or listening to the radio and getting a lot of lightweight analysis and celebrity fluff. (Of course, there's plenty of this stuff on the web also.) If the FCC gets hold of the internet and sells it to Microsoft or something, things will get really boring really fast.

Of course, in arguing whether or not people benefit from information technology, we assume that everyone has access to that technology. Clearly this is not true. People in the inner cities who can't afford a computer, and have no access at school or at a library, or most people in the Third World-- in short, most of the people on Earth-- are left out of whatever information revolution we create. In this sense whatever democratic effects the internet has are canceled out by the stratification of society based on information access. A few college kids and rich Microsoft geeks having a discussion about the web does not make a democracy.

Mon Oct 20 07:35:31 PDT 1997 - Regarding the short excerpts from "Telecommunications and the City" that we were given:

In this brief reading I found some very interesting points about the changes in the we interpret the concept of 'space'. The authors point out Virilio's contention that new telecommunications capacities "ultimately signal the end of the car because speed of telecommunications will inevitably displace slower forms of infrastructure.(255)" I find any prediction that the car will be diminished but this statement seems too simplistic. If forces in action lead to reduced use of the car won't they also lead to the reduction of much of the infrastructure that we regard as urban agglomerations?

The authors suggest on pg 257 that "telecommunications will reproduce or perhaps intensify already unsustainable patterns of urban life." This is a troublesome concept but their arguments about "urban-dwelling elite" and vested interests don't seem to sup port the point too well.

On pages 259 and 260 the authors point out that telecommunications is not environmentally cost free. There are costs associated with electricity use, materials extraction and disposal, and other problems. Impacts on health need consideration also. I am skeptical of the grab bag of statistics that are used to demonstrate the electricity use of computers, though.

I found the idea that telecommunications can cause "the inducement of transportation(260)." The argument that increased communication capabilities can broaden our horizons rings true. "Telecommunications and the City" raises some interesting questions and serves as a rational alternative to the "utopians" that see the telecommunications revolution as the answer to all the problems that plague humanity. Certainly some problems will be addressed, some solved, and some created.

(In reading this excerpt, I was puzzlied by the usage "telematics". Does anyone have a read on what this means?)
Bill L, 498

Sat Oct 18 11:51:34 PDT 1997 - A few comments I would like to make on the centralization/ decentralization of cities due to telecommunications. Whichever way cities go centralized or decentralized it will be at a much slower pace than the advancement of technology. There are too many ingrained attitudes regarding interaction among people, businesses etc not to mention too many actual physical locations that are all tied into societies idea of a city to make any change too rapid. However, telecommunications I believe will initially make cities more centralized. This will be due to a movement of people and industries to centers of high technology. For example, myself as a student at the university. I live in Seattle, and go to school here. While this allows decentralization locally (I can study, learn at home more and commute to school less often) yet this is all possible right now because I live here in this area. I see a movement of people and business to these type of high-technology areas. As telecommuting, telelearning, networking, tele-shopping, tele-banking become more prevalent, I see a combination of decentralization and centralization happening in cities.

First of all information service based industries will be completely decentralized. Information by nature is non-material. Thus, it can be sent and received from any location. I think given the choice services of this type will choose the location that best suits their needs without having to think about location of market. Thus, they will be located in various places and their market will be global.

Secondly, service based industries that require actual physical presence will decentralize somewhat, but centralize in smaller "mini-cities". For example, barber shops, auto repair (assuming that eventually there is still a need for cars with all the telecommuting going on. . . but that's another topic and much much farther into the future), restaurants, some retail (because some people do actually like shopping in a store). These types of services and businesses will no longer be tied to the traditional big city, but will remain close to each other for consumer convenience which is to their own benefit as well.

Thirdly, there will probably be some sort of centralization of manufacturing and industrial type businesses when it is to their benefit to be close to each other. There will be less need for them to be located near their market, allowing manufacturing type industries to centralize - being in the same vicinity as labor and inputs. One of the inputs being labor, there will have to be some centralization because there will have to be a population living close enough to commute to work and services and businesses to provide for them.

In response to prior comments: Dave: I agree with Dave's 10/16 comment. It's really exciting to be involved in an age where technology is revolutionizing the way we view such basic concepts as time and space. He also brings up a good point regarding socio/economic distinctions. My prior thoughts on this topic had been very centered on my own experiences without thinking about how this technological age affects those with little access to the tools necessary. I'm not sure what the answer is to this, but think it is worth analyzing.

Lory: While I can understand your feelings on "electronic space" I think it is necessary to put it in those kind of terms to understand what is happening to the way that people, cities, etc are changing and interacting. While you don't see "Electronic Space for Sale" signs around your neighborhood, you sure do see them in "cyberspace". (egs. Web pages, spaces to advertise on the web). And while the didn't consider "Edison Space" with the invention of the light bulb, they probably did rethink how they viewed such basic concepts of day and night - freeing people to do more at different times of the day - not being constrained to the physical aspects of when the sun rose and set. I'm sure it revolutionized ideas of the time as to when people woke up, played, worked, etc. So, while its an almost overwhelming and frightening concept - this whole cyberspace thing - you must admit that at the same time it's very fascinating and amazing. But, I do understand that it may seem frightening to set up how you view the world based on technology rather than physical, touchable, tangible places and spaces, but I think, at this point, it's unstoppable.

Scott: yes, the internet is a bigger and better library, and a bigger and better lot of things. You're right it makes information much more accessible and will affect such "information brokers" as writers and publishers. But, my feelings are that people will always find a way to capitalize on a situation and while it will close some avenues for these types of services, it will open new ones.
Tammy C, Geog 350

Fri Oct 17 14:05:00 PDT 1997 - I dislike the term "electronic spaces". I suppose that means I should dislike the term "cyberspace" also. There is something about placing a physical term on signals that flow through wires that bothers me. I know the authors of "Telecom and the City try to define and defend "electronic spaces", but I'm not convinced. Telecommunications are a various set of tools that improve the way we do business and move goods, not some "space" out in the world. I've yet to walk through my neighborhood and see a sign that says "Electronic Space For Sale". Did anyone write about "Edison Space" when the light bulb was invented?
[Lory W Geog 498]

Thu Oct 16 14:15:48 PDT 1997 - I am amazed at the amount and diversity of information available over the internet. Traditionally, information has been a commodity of some value. We buy books and magazines for the up-to-date information they contain. It appears that much of the data we used to purchase is becoming free for browsing, even though in some cases in a more diluted form. What impact does this have for publishers, writers, etc. who make their money selling information? Are their incentives to produce traditional and non -traditional material undermined by the internet? What kinds of fees can we expect to pay in the future as more individuals and companies turn from the initial start-up interest to more profit oriented applications of the internet? Is the internet just a bigger and better library?
--Scott, GEOG 350

Thu Oct 16 02:12:28 PDT 1997 - It is very exciting to be part of a generation that is revolutionizing the information age. The specific area of this information age that I wish to discuss is the telecommunications technologies. I believe that there are both positives and negatives to the telecommunications technologies. My example shall be personal computers and the World Wide Web. What are some the positives? Some of the positives include searching for information without heading down to the library, making your name and business more accessible to others, not having to hire representatives to take orders over the phone for your company, and being able to have the personal freedom of running your business out of your home, not from a downtown high-rise. Vasts amounts of time are saved by using your own personal computer, not having to go back and forth to the library all the time. It is also useful in making your name and business known to everyone interested in the services you offer or that have the same interests you do.

Companies can save so much time and money by having customers order over the World Wide Web. You would never have to listen to customers in all their buying "moods" and you would just work with the orders sent through the World Wide Web. One of the most valuable aspects in a person's life is the freedom to work at your own pace and not have to work under someone else. This is also an old philosophy where each person makes as much as he or she wants to, but it obviously depends on their everyday effort.

What are some of the negatives? The World Wide Web doesn't have the same books or resources available at the library, and it is also useful to know how to find info you want or need at the library with the help of the library staff. Another negative is that the only real businesses that can succeed over the World Wide Web are retail. All other businesses require some kind of business activity where they come face to face with their customers. Not having phone representatives is insulting when a customer has a question and is left guessing on what to do, and the order is incorrect when it arrives to them. Working out of your home is convenient, but is it too convenient? I personally find it more gratifying doing business face to face because then I know who I am working with. These all are just random thoughts in my head that I thought I would share with you, and these are undoubtably just a few of the many examples on the pros and cons of the telecommunications technologies. Something else to consider: Is this telecommunications technologies era fair to all? Although every student (grade, middle, high school, college) has reasonably the same access to this information at school, it is unfair to those that can not access it at home. Think of inner-city children who can not afford a personal computer. I feel very fortunate to own a personal computer. I know how rough it is trying to schedule typing up assignments and other stuff without it. Now I think that I would not know what to do or how I would get through school without it. I am not sure if inner city children know what they are missing because they never had the luxury of using a personal computer outside of school or the library. I do feel though that the wealthier have an advantage over the poorer for the reasons just stated. I am hoping that some way in the near future personal computers and the World Wide Web will be just as accessible to a family as a television set is today. Let's not leave the not-so-wealthy in the dust. These have been a few of my feelings for a while, and I am glad that there is now a forum that I can voice these at, and also add to the online discussion.
- David, Geography 350

Wed Oct 15 16:42:37 PDT 1997 - Does this thing really work?

Tue Oct 7 16:58:53 PDT 1997 - Hello 350!!!