Utopia

“The Internet abdicates control to the individual; that is its special allure, its power to be endlessly surprising, as well as its founding principle” (Wu 266). This statement emphasizes the greatest advantage of the Internet: it empowers the individual. One can see and listen to everything he or she wants. Of course there is the issue of copyright, so, in this context, the word “everything” is relative. However, if one thinks of what you can do on the Internet, the openness of the system is simply amazing. Writing a blog, creating a profile, staying in touch with the latest news, connecting with people from all over the world, reading your email, watching a video, all of these and much more comprise the Internet as we know it. If radio was considered in its infancy the ideal information medium then how is the Internet?

A revolution… It is true that the Internet has redefined the meaning of the word “open”. Nonetheless, Wu claims that “when we look carefully at the twentieth century, we soon find that the Internet wasn’t the first information technology supposed to have changed everything forever” (5). And the recollections of the evolution of telephony, radio, film, and television have indeed supported his claim. So, it is more than normal to ask ourselves if the Internet will also fall victim to the “gang of octopuses” (Wu 235).

Going back to the Internet’s founding principle we see the difference between the Internet and all the other information industries. The latter concentrated the power to the innovator, and later, the monopolist. At the same time, there is one detail of the Internet’s design that makes it as vulnerable as the other inventions – its infrastructure, or “the pipes” through which the information comes to us. This is the “Achilles heel” that even the greatest powers of the media, once baffled by the Internet, have spotted and wish to use it to their advantage.

History has shown that “the objectives of creating information are often at odds with those of disseminating it” (Wu 305). This has often led to vertical integration as in the case of the film industry. So, who can be sure that a combination such as Apple, AT&T, and Hollywood, is not looming on the horizon? This is just one example that Wu introduces in order to show how the most powerful media conglomerates could take over the electronic media and the entertainment.

Wu proposes a Separation Principle which is definitely the logical solution. Still, how do you keep the conglomerates away? AT&T was broken up by the government in an effort to promote a competitive market. Soon though, the “perennial Phoenix” (Wu 252), found its way back to the top by lending a hand (or an ear) to the administration. As Wu suggests it is not only government and the law that can protect us.

What appears to be even more important is, as Wu concludes, the population’s “information morality” (315). This is simply a matter of not being indifferent to what takes place in the information industry, such as the banning a website from the Internet. Undoubtedly, there is something more besides the flashy Apple or the “smart” smartphones.

We have the power right now. I regard it as optimism, though some might argue it is naïve of me to say. Yet, I believe that we can still remain in control of the Internet in the future. It is not too late, right?

Monopoly: Play and Win





In “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires”, Tim Wu claims that “the shift from an open industrial phase to a closed market usually begins when capital interests spy the potential for vastly increased profit through monopoly” (52). This is not a surprising statement as nowadays everything revolves around money. However, every new media of the past century – radio, telephony, television, and film – was initially considered a revolution of the forms of expression, a long awaited chance to improve the standard of life. Time proved that all these seemingly ideal innovations fell victims to what Wu has identified as the “the Cycle”, a pattern that describes the evolution from “a freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel” (6).

Once upon a time, an invention is born that revolutionizes the information industry and gives people the opportunity to express themselves in unthinkable ways. Soon, though, “sinister forces” (Wu 77) emerge as a few people notice something else: how by dominating the new environment, one can build an empire.

This is the recurring theme throughout Wu’s book. Wu also debates that the would-be moguls have a complex personality and nurture dreams of becoming gods. Nonetheless, the most obvious force that drives the closure of an open system remains the power of money. A key figure in Wu’s profiles of “defining moguls” (29) is Adolph Zukor – the “boss-of-bosses” (Wu 91) of the movie industry. Zukor’s approach was vertical integration in his quest to control all the parts that formed the entertainment industry: production, distribution, and exhibition. A centralized film industry implied “streamlined production and virtually guaranteed audiences” (Wu 89) and, thus, larger profits.

The film industry is probably the best embodiment of the power of money. Who does not associate Hollywood with making the big bucks? For me, it is also impressive how the “gang of octopuses” (Wu 235) have seized control of the international marketplace. A relevant example is when a movie bombs at the American box-office, but this does not affect the studio because it performs well overseas. Could it be the idea of the American dream, the glamorous stars, or, more recently the lure of 3D, that make the American movies so popular all around the globe? It is difficult to say but it is surely true. I always knew that the national film industry in Romania, as well as in other European countries, has been seriously disturbed by Hollywood, but I did not think of the magnitude of this monopoly. It is remarkable how money appears to be travelling around the world, regardless of borders.

Going back to America, the most enduring monopoly can be found in the phone industry. Some might argue that the second Bell Monopoly contributed to the public good as stated by its slogan: “One System, One Policy, Universal Service”. Sounds perfect, right? But as Wu points out AT&T sabotaged many of its competitors. It seems normal that the market of a reliable telephone company can provide a stable source of revenue. Nevertheless, this was not the goal. AT&T wanted larger profits and that led to monopoly.

The Cycle also turned on the radio, once considered the greatest open medium. It was something ideally about the power of broadcasting to bring people together, and, at the same time, to allow new voices to be heard. Soon though, “general” broadcasting was imposed which benefitted giants as NBC, and later CBS. This situation also sheds light on another practice in monopolistic industries which is to suppress the forms of expression. Once again money was the force that set in motion another cycle when it was acknowledged that “profit is not tied to the proliferation of many voices but to the propaganda of a few – to the mass production of speech, as it were” (Wu 130). The conclusion seems to resemble a mathematical equation, but the audience factor is sadly not even taken into account. This becomes very relevant at present, especially when we realize that Internet is based on the same principle of openness.

A very similar path took the development of cable television. Its capabilities were initially limitless: “revive local communities, and offer every American direct access to the world’s knowledge and wisdom” (Wu 176). But it was Ted Turner who saw the entire potential of the cable industry, and, particularly of a consolidated one. He created the first cable network and was soon joined by numerous other networks which targeted a particular audience. This was not the typical monopoly but each of the networks held its own control over targeted groups.

The cable industry’s formula was “a constant appetite for cash and for content that could deliver a sufficient audience to yield a return on capital” (Wu 215). This is yet another instance of an information industry that benefitted from a restricted access but only on a financial level. In terms of content it is rather questionable whether mass media was an improvement. It is when politics rule what we see and hear on TV that it really becomes dangerous. In the worst scenario, we are exposed to just one side of the story and we end up believing it because we do not have enough resources to make our own decisions.

The progression from an open information industry to a closed one is inevitably linked to the dreams of maximizing profit. Greed is not the ultimate goal of the corporate titans but it is what triggers the first phase of the Cycle, because every would-be information mogul starts by wanting to make money from his or her products.

Geek&Poke

Particularly, Wu’s contention is of vital importance for the future of the Internet – the information industry that we all rely upon (the current situation in Egypt speaks for itself).

So, can we still have a happy ending? As I want to end in an optimistic note I will say yes, though we have to care more about what happens around us. After all, the virtual world exists as long as the real one allows it.

Work Cited:

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Knopf, 2010.

It's Time

Time has come for me to do something new: blogging. It has become something extremely common, but if one thinks of what is the latest, I am quite sure I will not be the only one left behind. We could consider us the most creative generation with so many novelties in such short time, but reaching this point was not done in the natural way some might believe. On this subject, Tim’s Wu “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires” brings to light many thought-provoking ideas. One of his most surprising claims is that innovation does not follow its natural course but has to enter a battle to death from its infancy.

Wu points out that “whatever technological reality we live with is the result of tooth-and-claw industrial combat” (25). Throughout the book, he gives numerous examples to support this idea. One very extreme example is Edwin Armstrong’s invention of FM radio. “The defining mogul” (125), David Sarnoff, the central figure in American broadcasting, understood immediately the merits of this invention and how it could disrupt the AM economy, and particularly his control over the radio industry. With the help of the government, Sarnoff crushed any “disruptive” innovation from 1926 to 1946. It is indeed striking how Sarnoff, a visionary himself could limit free speech, choices, and progress all for the sake of profit.

In the history of feature films, the clash between the independents from Hollywood and the East Coast Trust could easily become a plot for one of today’s blockbusters. The epic movies we nowadays associate with and expect from Hollywood can hardly be imagined in the past when films were cheap, short, with no celebrities, and void of any meaningful ideas and images. Here some might argue that the movie industry has moved from one extreme to the other, relying too much on remarkable visual effects rather than content, but still we would not have got the chance to see our blue avatars.

The extent to which an industry would go to preserve itself is reflected in AT&T’s decision not to develop magnetic band as it could potentially limit the use of telephones. This situation makes one wonder whether some discoveries could have been made sooner and, if so, what impact would they have had on the course of history. Maybe we would all coexist with robots capable of thinking for themselves…

It is very interesting how one has to go back into the past to see the future of technological advances. Right now it has come the time for all these inventions that redefine our ways of expressing. The question that arises is how long the information industry will remain open to innovation from any outsider, or “outlaw” in Wu’s words.