Follow FTTxtra: Posts RSS | Comments RSS | Email
Search
Broadband Internet Can be Deadly
When people think about Broadband Internet access, they tend to think only good things. I have made the analogy that Broadband Internet access is now a utility like electricity, and electricity has benefited most people tremendously, but not everyone. My uncle was killed by electrocution while working on aerial telephone lines near high voltage power lines. While I do not expect anyone to perish by touching a Broadband Internet fiber optic cable, there are indeed some risks in Broadband Internet access. I thought I would just go through a few to help prevent further carnage.
One problem with Broadband Internet access is addiction to this oh-so-compelling medium. If you did not know, Broadband Internet is much more addicting than dial-up (really?). The Center for Internet Addiction (yes it’s true) offers an online (of course) test for Internet Addiction. How do you score?
Children should be closely supervised when using Broadband Internet access. There are many dangers for children lurking in dark corners of the Broadband Internet, but ProtectKids.com offers plenty of advice for keeping children safe while they play online games till their fingernails fall off.
And yes, the Broadband Internet can be lethal. China has bootcamps for Internet addicts, and at least one of the inmates has died during treatment.
Like any tool, the Broadband Internet can be used for good or bad. With a little care, Broadband Internet will fundamentally improve our world by giving more people access to more of the valuable things to be found on the Internet.
© 2009, The Product Group LLC. All rights reserved.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Related posts:
- State of The Broadband Internet The Broadband Internet is often discussed, but rarely well defined. The best definitions are the simplest. My definition of Broadband Internet access is that it...
- UK Internet Beats TV in Advertising Revenue At least in the UK, advertising revenue for Internet marketing has surpassed advertising revenue for television. In the midst of a recession, a record £1.75B...
- Broadband Access Carriers Need Net Neutrality Too Net Neutrality (or Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality), as proposed recently by the FCC, is good for the broadband access carriers. Though this is counter...
- Broadband is last to go Why is telecom weathering the recession better than many industries? The answer is simply that telecom services, including cable, phone, and internet services, are some...
- Over 2/3 of US Homes have Broadband Leichtman Research has data that 2/3 of homes in the US have broadband today, and that broadband penetration increases with household income (really?). Their key...
I must confess I think that the concept of “Internet Addiction” is about as preposterous as “book addiction” or “hotrod addiction”. The DSM IV, the standard for diagnosis of psychological disorders in the US and most of the world, does not identify internet or computer addiction. In fact, to my knowledge, it does not identify a single activity-based addiction. The DSM V, currently under development, has many pushing for internet or computer addiction, but most of the people pushing are groups seeking to treat the “disorder”, not research psychologists.
My main disagreement is that internet use – even excessive use – is not inherently different from any other time sink. Some people garden, work on restoring a car, read fantasy books, etc. None of these activities is fundamentally different from excessive use of a computer. It serves to isolate one from those immediately around them, it can become an impediment to social or professional interactions, and can be expensive. All of these fit the dime-store description of “addiction”, which I think is why so many people outside actual diagnosis and treatment believe it when “experts” call it that.
Stigmatizing “internet addiction” seems far more dangerous than treating it for what it is; occasionally an escapist action or attempt to distance oneself from the immediate environment, but most often a perfectly valid way to spend one’s free time in a satisfying, if self-indulgent, way.
I wanted to shed a bit of light on why I think Broadband Internet might be addicting. This is far from a complete argument, but enlightening still.
The Internet today, especially with Broadband, has many of the qualities of TV, and so I will relate a story about trying to give up TV. When I was in college, my roommates and I all decided to sacrifice TV for Lent since we all felt this would not be much of a sacrifice (we certainly were not going to give up anything important like dessert). Well, the average duration of this sacrifice was only 14 days, and only I was able to go the entire 40 days. Marc, who was studying Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications with me, was able to last about three days before he had to get his fix of his “stories”. My younger brother Burt (who was on the 6 year degree plan) was able to go about 5 hours. These were the days before cable was big, and we only received two or three channels (depended on reception) to watch. Today, I receive 75 channels on my “Expanded Basic” analog cable TV plan.
I have to imagine that what was addicting 25 years ago with only 3 channels is much more addictive today with 75. And how many channels are available on the Internet? And does the Internet offer so many more ways to addict than did TV 25 years ago?
John Bartell
Right, I get that it’s a fun activity and when there’s no real repercussion for “lapsing”, TV, internet, and anything else can all seem difficult to give up. But that doesn’t make them addictions – it makes them hobbies.
The problem is that by the definition you gave, almost anything could be called an “addiction”. Leasure reading could EASILY be fit into the same definition. The DSM IV characterizes substance as any of the following:
* FAILURE TO FULFILL MAJOR OBLIGATIONS
* USE WHEN PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS
* RECURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS
* RECURRENT SOCIAL OR INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS
Sure, if you’re breaking into people’s houses to use their internet you may have a problem, but it probably isn’t broadband addiction.
Further, DSM defines addiction as having three or more of the following:
* TOLERANCE
* WITHDRAWAL
* LARGE AMOUNTS OVER A LONG PERIOD
* UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CUT DOWN
* TIME SPENT IN OBTAINING THE SUBSTANCE REPLACES SOCIAL, OCCUPATIONAL OR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
* CONTINUED USE DESPITE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
I think you’d be hard pressed to find individuals for whom most of that list is true, even in the case of people who use the Internet most heavily. The fact is that the Internet and broadband are social communication tools, first and foremost. Even if you’re only interacting by posting comments to a blog, though in most cases it is much more.
The reason I bring up the DSM is not because I believe them to be the end-all-to-beat-all diagnosis tool. But it does provide an established definition, agreed upon by the people who actually study addiction. The hyperbolic leap of “people spend time on it so it must be an addiction” that leads people to do things like set up “addiction centers” (even here in the US) for internet users is problematic in many ways. First, you have to question their motives: are they actually trying to help, or just making a quick buck off of hysteria? Treating addiction is difficult, heavily stigmatizing, and as you mentioned, can be dangerous. If you convince people that they ARE addicts, that their behavior is one OF an addict, don’t be surprised if they act like one; they’ll hide behaviors, be dishonest with those around them, or further withdraw and isolate themselves. This isn’t the broadband connection doing it, it’s the assumption that anything which consumes a lot of time must be bad.
The reason I’m pushing back so hard against terms like addiction is because of the culture it creates. One starts blaming individuals for actions that are, by all measure, quite healthy and normal. Imagine someone took your hobby, something that made you happy and left you satisfied after spending long hours at (hunting, fishing, golfing, restoring classic cars, painting, photography), and lumped it into the same category as breaking into cars for meth money.
http://www.tcnj.edu/~sa/adep/factsheets/dsm2.htm
I tihnk the key here is the difference between something that is addicting and the actual pathology of an addiction. I posit that the Internet, especially when offered over Broadband, can be addicting, but the vast majority of people who experience its addicting qualities would not qualify as having an addiction. Should users be denied access, they may experience some mild withdrawal symptoms such as distraction, grumpiness, stimulation seeking behavior, etc., but it would generally not be a situation in which formal treatment would be needed or beneficial.
The DSM is providing a definition to allow diagnosis of a pathology. It is indicating the point at which an activity becomes damaging enough so that it requires formalized treatment. It is not differentiating between those activities that are never addicting and those that can be.