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.