I constantly feel like I’m scrambling to stay on top of the “latest and greatest” new technologies. Progress seems to happen so fast; I fear the gadget I buy today may become obsolete in several years. It’s amazing (and scary) to see how technological advancements in my own lifetime have changed the way we work, play, and interact. That is why it has been a surprise to read of the lengthy and complex process new technology can go through to reach production, from the original kernel of an idea to the ubiquity of devices we use in our homes. Both Brian Winston’s introduction to Media Technology and Society and the early chapters of Roger Fidler’s Mediamorhposis show how the tools we use to communicate today were imagined decades and sometimes centuries earlier. The fast-pace digital age we live in isn’t quite as new as I thought.

With a broader historical perspective, it becomes apparent that buzzwords we use today such as “information age” and “new media” can be applied further back than the past half-century. This has led to another realization: the ways we adopt new technology and the policies for regulating that technology may have historical parallels we can study. For example, I had considered the issues we face when defining the future of the internet as uncharted territory. Yet after reading Fidler I noticed some parallels between the nature of amateur radio in the 1920s to the burst of amateur content on the Web. Could the outcome of the former show insight into future trends with the latter? Are there lessons there we can take away that might help us address current issues such as net neutrality?

For my project, it might be useful to look at Winston’s model on the diffusion of technology when considering the current state of the digital novel in the social sphere. How is the struggle between “supervening social necessities” and the “law of suppression of radical potential”, as described in Winston’s book, currently shaping the availability, popularity, and formats of e-books?