An important question raised in “Fixed Flow” is that of timing. The average user does not have the opportunity to voice their opinions or preferences in terms of the paths their data takes. A more informed user would likely desire keeping all information on nearby servers or, if they are less concerned with privacy, would perhaps desire high speeds. But they will not experience either of these due to the media/tech companies that have control over the paths themselves. It is beneficial for them to move data as inexpensively as possible, regardless of effect on the user. One of the only exceptions may be financial companies that plan data routes so fast they can have a minscule head start in stock trades. The user is left out, at the whim of those whose names are on the cables and servers around the world. This is where the opacity of networks becomes relevant. Staroslieski recognizes that most people imagine the cloud as a magical, overhead ether. Thinking about some of our other readings this semester, there’s a strong argument to be made that this public perception of the cloud is no accident. But there is no magical ether – if you’re not storing your data on your own hard drive, you’re storing it on someone else’s.
The relationship that this particular undersea infrastructure has on the media passed through it is interesting. Cables are installed to prepare for an expected media influx while media is simultaneously expanded to get efficient use of of these systems. What are the secret impacts of a media infrastructure used by the masses but quietly controlled by the few? In a addition to superficial concerns like video game play there are huge security and privacy concerns. The user does not know to be concerned about their information passing through the servers of other countries or companies, but they probably should be.
There was one area where I disagreed with Starsolieski. She claims inequality to access will grow due to the high cost of cable networks. But most technology gets drastically less expensive over time due to the continued advancements in the field. So I would argue that it is unwise to draw predictions of future access based on current cost analyses.