In titling my posts, I've realized that I'm unintentionally starting to create a pattern. They are all questions. I'm starting to question everything I thought I knew about cyberspace. The internet is not necessarily this vast open expanse that I thought it was or, if it is, it may not always be. But I also have to question whether or not the internet should really be completely unregulated. Whether it's really that simple. Now, before anyone goes up in arms, let me explain.
While I was reading Lessig's Open Code and Open Societies and Barlow's A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, one major thought kept striking me over and over. Both readings suggest that the internet needs to be a place of freedom, deregulation, expression and innovation. For the most part I agree with this but I see one problem. Contrary to what Barlow's style of writing suggests, the internet is not an entity unto itself. The internet depends on humans. Everything that the internet is was imagined, created and published by people. People are not perfect. People need reasonable constraints placed upon them. These constraints serve a general good.
In fact, people already have some constraints placed upon them and I believe, in some situations, these constraints should also apply to the world of cyberspace. Take Lessig's example of iCraveTV in Canada. This site served to rebroadcast television shows via the internet without consenting the original broadcaster; a practice that is legal in Canada but not in the United States. When the site did not sufficiently contain access to only Canadians, a lawsuit was issued in the United States. Lessig suggests that such a process of "zoning cyberspace" based on geography is wrong because it will only lead to further control of the internet.
But what about U.S. television broadcasting networks and companies? They clearly have rights over the shows they produce and the laws protecting those rights should be upheld even if it means placing constraints on cyberspace. It is people that are logging on and gaining access to this content and it is other people who are being cheated out of proper distribution of their content. People should be subject to the laws in place no matter the domain they affect. Lessig would probably say that such shows, once they are aired, should become "public domain." I'm not saying that this assertion is wrong but for the time being that is not the case and it has necessary consequences.
In general, I don't believe that most content, such as social sites, blogs and news need to be regulated on the internet. However, if the distribution of certain content clearly violates existing laws and the rights of other people or companies then those distributing it illegally should be held accountable. As laws vary between countries, this may sometimes make "zoning" practices necessary until the issue can be resolved. The internet is still a new and evolving domain. Until common practices and values are established around the world, these issues will continue to arise. "Zoning" need not be a permanent solution, but for the time being it is the one we have.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Is the Internet the Exception?
Tim Wu's The Master Switch centers around his idea of 'the cycle' in modern information industries. He spends the vast majority of the book providing clear evidence of how these industries, radio, telephone, television and film, have all gone through periods of both centralization and relative openness. However, one question remains unanswered. It is still unclear how the newest and most innovative communications technology, the internet, will be affected by the cycle.
The internet itself was constructed around the founding principles of openness and individual control. Every user is to be able to use the internet in the way that best serves their needs, accessing whatever content they so choose. Despite this built in notion of openness, it seems that the internet remains extremely vulnerable to companies hungry for control over the world's largest communications medium. Indeed, Wu claims that "...even a technology as radical and powerful as the internet seems able at most to moderate but not to abolish," the inexorable cycle (289).
In trying to determine what may become of the internet in the future, the experiences of Google are interesting to examine. Google owes much of its success to the fact that it was shaped in direct compliance with the idea of net neutrality. As Wu points out, "it is the structure of the Internet, much less than anything particular to the firm itself, that keeps Google standing" (282). It is developed from and its future depends upon an open network. The vast, open network has endless amounts of information that Google was able to make easily accessible to all users. However, because Google depends upon others so heavily, both for content and for the modes that allow it to reach people, it is extremely vulnerable to annihilation (282).
If the structure of the internet began to change, if we threw away the openness that the founders of the internet envisioned, Google, our most popular internet search engine, would be in serious trouble. The company has already had to begin to expand its offerings in order to protect itself and its ideals from being disrupted by those who do not necessarily value a fully open network.
As Apple Inc. has developed new flashy devices, essentially mobile computers that fit in your palm, it has also aligned itself with the television, movie, music and telephone industries to provide the content and services that it so chooses (292). The goal of Apple is clearly to achieve "unrelenting control over [its] products and how they're used" (278). Such massive partnerships, while they may provide excellent products and services, are not in keeping with the ideal of an entirely open network. The customer may still have an illusion of individual control but in actuality the content and services that they can access are severely limited by the nature of the deals made between companies.
These limitations of content and access are threatening, as noted, to Google's entire business model. In 2007, Google developed the Android as an alternate operating system for telephones in order to attempt to move the "mobile world into territory that is friendly to Google rather than to its enemies" (294). Android is distributed for free, as are the majority of Google's services, both as a necessity to ensure Google's future and to ingrain the ideal of open service back into the communication industry. But should Google really have to spend its time developing new technologies just to protect itself? Google is so successful because the company is built on one extremely useful service that it has been able to spend its time developing to its full potential (283). It can be argued that if the company has to continue to develop new technologies just to stay afloat, rather than developing and releasing them on its own terms, then quality may suffer as its attention is forced to shift from its main purpose: internet search. No matter what, if other companies continue to build partnerships, which Google has rarely done, then Google will be at a supreme disadvantage in the world of internet communications.
At this point, the internet could still go either way. It is clear by the likes of Apple Inc. that a closed network is a definite possibility. For now, and hopefully for the indefinite future, the internet remains a largely open network full of all the varieties of content one could imagine. But, as Wu states, "however adapted to new forms and contexts" there is still a "human ambition to build and overthrow empires" (299). It is unlikely that such hunger for control will cease to exist anytime soon meaning that the urge to control the internet will continue to be an enticing one. And as we continue to increase our dependence on the internet as a mode of communication, information, entertainment and more, that urge will only get stronger. If any company were ever able to exercise entire control over the internet they would hold an unprecedented amount of power in their hands, a frightening prospect to say the least.
The internet itself was constructed around the founding principles of openness and individual control. Every user is to be able to use the internet in the way that best serves their needs, accessing whatever content they so choose. Despite this built in notion of openness, it seems that the internet remains extremely vulnerable to companies hungry for control over the world's largest communications medium. Indeed, Wu claims that "...even a technology as radical and powerful as the internet seems able at most to moderate but not to abolish," the inexorable cycle (289).
In trying to determine what may become of the internet in the future, the experiences of Google are interesting to examine. Google owes much of its success to the fact that it was shaped in direct compliance with the idea of net neutrality. As Wu points out, "it is the structure of the Internet, much less than anything particular to the firm itself, that keeps Google standing" (282). It is developed from and its future depends upon an open network. The vast, open network has endless amounts of information that Google was able to make easily accessible to all users. However, because Google depends upon others so heavily, both for content and for the modes that allow it to reach people, it is extremely vulnerable to annihilation (282).
If the structure of the internet began to change, if we threw away the openness that the founders of the internet envisioned, Google, our most popular internet search engine, would be in serious trouble. The company has already had to begin to expand its offerings in order to protect itself and its ideals from being disrupted by those who do not necessarily value a fully open network.
As Apple Inc. has developed new flashy devices, essentially mobile computers that fit in your palm, it has also aligned itself with the television, movie, music and telephone industries to provide the content and services that it so chooses (292). The goal of Apple is clearly to achieve "unrelenting control over [its] products and how they're used" (278). Such massive partnerships, while they may provide excellent products and services, are not in keeping with the ideal of an entirely open network. The customer may still have an illusion of individual control but in actuality the content and services that they can access are severely limited by the nature of the deals made between companies.
These limitations of content and access are threatening, as noted, to Google's entire business model. In 2007, Google developed the Android as an alternate operating system for telephones in order to attempt to move the "mobile world into territory that is friendly to Google rather than to its enemies" (294). Android is distributed for free, as are the majority of Google's services, both as a necessity to ensure Google's future and to ingrain the ideal of open service back into the communication industry. But should Google really have to spend its time developing new technologies just to protect itself? Google is so successful because the company is built on one extremely useful service that it has been able to spend its time developing to its full potential (283). It can be argued that if the company has to continue to develop new technologies just to stay afloat, rather than developing and releasing them on its own terms, then quality may suffer as its attention is forced to shift from its main purpose: internet search. No matter what, if other companies continue to build partnerships, which Google has rarely done, then Google will be at a supreme disadvantage in the world of internet communications.
At this point, the internet could still go either way. It is clear by the likes of Apple Inc. that a closed network is a definite possibility. For now, and hopefully for the indefinite future, the internet remains a largely open network full of all the varieties of content one could imagine. But, as Wu states, "however adapted to new forms and contexts" there is still a "human ambition to build and overthrow empires" (299). It is unlikely that such hunger for control will cease to exist anytime soon meaning that the urge to control the internet will continue to be an enticing one. And as we continue to increase our dependence on the internet as a mode of communication, information, entertainment and more, that urge will only get stronger. If any company were ever able to exercise entire control over the internet they would hold an unprecedented amount of power in their hands, a frightening prospect to say the least.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Centralization? No Thanks.
This is my first blog. Ever. My initial worries about blogging are evident by the fact that I've spent the better part of an hour reading other blogs and nailing down my ideas despite the mountain of other work that I've got piled beside me. However, I know that any insecurities I may have about blogging are self-imposed, that is, the responsibility I feel to write a well thought out piece of work is dictated by me, not the internet. In actuality, the nature of the internet allows me to post just about anything no matter the quality or content. No one else has to screen it first, give approval or endorse this post. I simply have to click "Publish Post." Such freedom of ideas is a luxury that, as Tim Wu's The Master Switch points out, has not historically been a central part of large information technology industries.
For the better part of the 20th century our most influential information and communication technologies were run by prominent monopolies with the power to decide what new ideas and therefore technologies the public got to see and when they would see them.
A device as simple as an answering machine, seen as a threat to the entire telephone industry, saw its development completely shut down by AT&T in the 1930s (106). As is turns out, the answering machine is little more than a convenient add-on to the telephone and today the notion of it being threatening seems silly. But we didn't learn that until the 1990s after the break-up of the telephone monopoly and 60 years after the device's original development.
FM Radio saw a similar, if less intense, stalemate. But the chilling thing about FM Radio's development is not that it was halted for a time but that it still has never been developed to serve the full spectrum of capabilities that it could. Armstrong, the developer of FM, proved its potential as a "multipurpose communications technology" rather than just radio (129). The AT&T monopoly, who stopped FM's release until it had control over it, saw the technology as disruptive enough as it was without developing it further.
I was astonished the most when I read that even prototypes of high definition TV were being developed in the 30s and 40s though the public would not see the technology until the 21st century (151). Such blatant controls over technological innovation by overbearing monopolies are startling in a society that is meant to value competition and individual merit. The fact is, all of these technologies were developed by independent inventors toiling away alone but the nature of centralized industry did not allow them to release or receive credit for their work. Their ideas and developments were squashed or stolen from them.
This history makes me wonder where we would be if the monopolies had remained as powerful as they were in the 20th century. Would we have satellite radio? Caller ID? Cell Phones? Smartphones? TiVo? It's tough to know. We're lucky that the internet has not fallen victim to a single power. The rapidly evolving uses of the internet are testament to the merits of a decentralized communication system. In the virtual world their is always room for a new idea, a new website, a new game, a new form of communication. The internet gives people the freedom to innovate and express themselves as they please which creates a more fulfilling, convenient, and fun experience for all of us who share in this ever-expanding network.
For the better part of the 20th century our most influential information and communication technologies were run by prominent monopolies with the power to decide what new ideas and therefore technologies the public got to see and when they would see them.
A device as simple as an answering machine, seen as a threat to the entire telephone industry, saw its development completely shut down by AT&T in the 1930s (106). As is turns out, the answering machine is little more than a convenient add-on to the telephone and today the notion of it being threatening seems silly. But we didn't learn that until the 1990s after the break-up of the telephone monopoly and 60 years after the device's original development.
FM Radio saw a similar, if less intense, stalemate. But the chilling thing about FM Radio's development is not that it was halted for a time but that it still has never been developed to serve the full spectrum of capabilities that it could. Armstrong, the developer of FM, proved its potential as a "multipurpose communications technology" rather than just radio (129). The AT&T monopoly, who stopped FM's release until it had control over it, saw the technology as disruptive enough as it was without developing it further.
I was astonished the most when I read that even prototypes of high definition TV were being developed in the 30s and 40s though the public would not see the technology until the 21st century (151). Such blatant controls over technological innovation by overbearing monopolies are startling in a society that is meant to value competition and individual merit. The fact is, all of these technologies were developed by independent inventors toiling away alone but the nature of centralized industry did not allow them to release or receive credit for their work. Their ideas and developments were squashed or stolen from them.
This history makes me wonder where we would be if the monopolies had remained as powerful as they were in the 20th century. Would we have satellite radio? Caller ID? Cell Phones? Smartphones? TiVo? It's tough to know. We're lucky that the internet has not fallen victim to a single power. The rapidly evolving uses of the internet are testament to the merits of a decentralized communication system. In the virtual world their is always room for a new idea, a new website, a new game, a new form of communication. The internet gives people the freedom to innovate and express themselves as they please which creates a more fulfilling, convenient, and fun experience for all of us who share in this ever-expanding network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)