Foretold by History (Project 2 Final)

“This time is different: with everything on one network, the potential power to control is so much greater” (Wu 318).

            If you type in Yahoo.com or Google.com and press enter, the Internet opens up before you. Suddenly, this world founded on the principle of net neutrality abdicates control to the individual. In The Master Switch, Tim Wu, creator of the term “net neutrality,” discusses the power of potential monopolies such as Google and Apple and the threat they pose to the future neutrality of the Internet. Wu fearfully claims that “the future of Apple and Google will form the future of America and the world” because these companies will continue to determine how Americans and the rest of the world share information (Wu 273). In contrast, William Gibson in Neuromancer envisions the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace as a habitable place, with all the world’s data represented as visual, even palpable structures arranged in a matrix. He depicts a world where the individual could be more powerful than monopolies. Who is right?  I believe that Wu’s prediction of the destruction of net neutrality is more likely to occur than Gibson’s prediction of a future “consensual hallucination” as the power of Google and Apple, the design of the Internet, and Wu’s decision to join the federal government illustrate the imminent possibility of a closed system.

            Wu’s fear that the power of Google and Apple, coupled with the design of the Internet, could end net neutrality in the future is valid. The Internet is “operated by a finite number of firms upon whose good behavior the whole thing depends” (Wu 317). Thus, there is a risk of losing the Internet’s diversity of content and services because it is vulnerable to centralization by a powerful firm, and Google and Apple are examples of dominant firms that just might have that power. Wu considers Google to be “the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch” (Wu 279). In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googlization of Everything, he claims that we allow Google, which qualifies as a monopoly because its market share of the search business is over 65 percent, “to determine what is important, relevant, and true…whatever shows up on the first page of a Google search is what matters in forming our sense of any reality” (Wu 281).  Fortunately, Google currently operates as an open information system, providing customers with choice and freedom. However, given that the company is public and must answer to its shareholders, Google may in the future choose to pursue decisions that serve its best economic interest at the expense of net neutrality.

           Similar to Google, Apple is a large, powerful company that could destroy net neutrality by monopolizing the Internet. The App Store enables Apple to decide what content is available to consumers on the iPhone, the iPad, and the iTouch. Also, Apple might eventually control the content consumers have access to online. Tom Conlon of Popular Science asserts, “once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly” (Conlon). As Wu describes, “net neutrality is what prevents the telephone and cable industry from killing Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, blogs…” as well as Google from destroying Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines (Wu 286). How does Wu propose to stop the potential domination of Google and Apple in order to save net neutrality?  Through his “Separations Principle” which proposes a constitutional approach to the information economy where all power that derives from the control of information is constrained and divided in order to avoid the perils of a closed system.

            If Wu’s fear that net neutrality may end seems imminent, in contrast, Gibson’s prediction of the “consensual hallucination” and the dissolution of governments seems light years away. However, it should be noted that some of Gibson’s predictions in Neuromancer have come true or may soon come true. For example, Gibson’s networked artificial matrix of cyberspace has come to represent everything from computers and information technology to the Internet. In addition, Gibson’s concept of “jacking in” to a 3-D world using electrodes and neural interfaces may not be far off, as researchers at Brown University have used human thoughts to move a cursor across a computer screen (Brown University). Even so, the virtual worlds that we have today do not even remotely compare to the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace that Gibson envisions in Neuromancer. He creates the Simstim, a sensory experience where one person can view the world through another’s eyes, as well as the Construct, which is the recording and preservation of a person’s consciousness. The Simstim and the Construct seem to be unlikely future-tense technologies in contrast to Wu’s predicted future involving the potential end of net neutrality. Also, Gibson predicts a world where multinational corporations have assumed the role of governments. Today, governments remain powerful and determined to prevent corporations from monopolizing the Internet.

            How big a threat does Wu feel the centralization of the Internet poses?  Enough of a threat that he has joined the federal government in an effort to protect net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission recently named Tim Wu a senior advisor for competition and consumer protection issues affecting the Internet and cell phones (Bilton). Wu strongly believes in the importance of consumers having unregulated access to all Internet content and he will work with the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning to assist with competition and consumer protection policy initiatives related to technology (Bilton). As earlier discussed, Wu fears the possibility of AT&T, Apple, Google or Verizon controlling the Internet in the near future and influencing the content consumers can access online. Why is this fear rational?  In The Master Switch, Wu describes the history of information industries in which corporations successfully monopolized a particular industry. Essentially, Wu believes that history has foretold the eventual attempt to centralize the Internet. The Internet “naturally harnesses the power of decentralization and defies central control, but in the face of a determined power, that design alone is no adequate defense of what we hold most dear about the network” (Wu 317). Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who worries that the monopolization of the Internet will negatively impact our economy, joins Wu in his effort to save net neutrality. The Internet revolution of the past twenty-five years has created millions of jobs and new industries. Congressman Markey believes in the importance of net neutrality as it allows for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity (Markey). The openness of the Internet ensures that the consumer benefits and that innovation, competition and investment continue to thrive. 

            As Tim Wu and others fight to make sure that all Internet traffic be treated equally, Verizon issued a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality policy in January (Tessler). This was followed by a promise by Republican members of Congress to repeal net neutrality rules in February (The Associated Press). Will the FCC be able to withstand these attacks? Hopefully, otherwise Wu’s fear of a future where corporations control the Internet and its content may soon become a reality.

Works Cited:

Bilton, Nick. "Tim Wu, Creator of the Term 'Net Neutrality,' Joins the Federal Government.” The New York Times 

            2011. The New York Times. Web.

Brown University. "Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control Of Computer Cursor. Science Daily 

            2004. Science Daily. Web. 

Conlon, Tom. "The IPad's Closed System: Sometimes I Hate Being Right." Popular Science (2010). Popular 

            Science. 29 Jan. 2010. Web.

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print. 

Markey, Representative Ed. "The Importance of Net Neutrality." POLITICO 2010. POLITICO. Web.

Tessler, Joelle. “Verizon Challenges FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules.” MSNBC 2011. MSNBC. 20 Jan. 2011. Web.

The Associated Press. “House Republicans Seek to Block FCC Internet Rules.” National Public Radio (2011). 

           National Public Radio. 18 Feb. 2011. Web.

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

A Bleak Perception

            Despite the fact that I have chosen not to play massively multiplayer online role-playing games, I do not disapprove of those who play within reason. Last week, as I watched the documentary “Second Skin,” I felt mixed emotions towards online gaming. I was appalled to see an online gamer, who plays World of Warcraft for six hours a night, move halfway across the country to live with three friends he met in a virtual world. I felt disturbed as I watched a man find virtual love in the world of Everquest. After a few months of dating online, the man traveled cross-country to meet the woman in real life. I felt concerned for the suicidal man who went to Online Gamers Anonymous as he had receded from his real life after he started playing Everquest. I felt sympathetic and inspired by a man with Cerebral Palsy whose entire personality is expressed through his engagement in the virtual world. After watching “Second Skin,” still with mixed emotions towards online gaming, I have come to the conclusion that for those who engage in MMORPGS, there needs to be a balance between real life and virtual life. 

            In determining the balance between real life and virtual life, where do you draw the line? How much online gaming is too much? It becomes problematic when people live and breathe MMORPGs as in they don’t just play to play it, they play to live it. Unfortunately, most of the people in “Second Skin” were addicted to MMORPGS and there was no balance in their lives. The documentary depicts most of the subjects as largely dysfunctional people who are out of touch with the real world and incapable of engaging in the real world. Thus, “Second Skin” portrayed the negative stereotypes about gamers. With the exception of the man with Cerebral Palsy, there are few positive aspects illustrated about playing MMORPGS. I feel as though the director should have included subjects who played online games but also had a life outside the virtual world. Without including people who balance real life and virtual life, viewers of “Second Skin” might perceive MMORPGs to be inevitably addictive. 

Virtually Successful & Chic

            What on earth is a MMORPG? Julian Dibbell’s book Play Money has taught me that this acronym stands for Massively MultiPlayer Online Role-Playing Games. And, my curiosity ends there as I have never and will never engage in a MMORPG. I just don’t understand the appeal of operating fantasy characters in virtual environments. However, an appeal must exist because hundreds of thousands of people engage in online gaming daily.

           

            

            In the beginning of Play Money, Julian Dibbell is killing lizardmen in the realm of Ultima Online and he ends up selling swords and pieces of gold for a living. A real living, not a virtual one. Well then, what does it mean to be “real” in economics? How are the virtual monetary economic decisions made by Philip Rosedale, creator of Second Life, significantly different from those made by the Federal Reserve? I think that the U.S. economy is more “real” because more people are affected by the U.S. economy than by the Ultima Online economy. However, the online economies for MMORPGs and virtual worlds like Second Life are growing as more people become engaged in and possibly addicted to the virtual marketplace for virtual loot. In one year, talented “gold farmers” are able to make $1,000,000 buying and selling fantasy goods in a virtual world. If you are able to spend your entire day playing video games and still make a fortune, I can understand the appeal. When Stephen Dubner, the author of Freakonomics interviewed Philip Rosedale, he asked, “‘How do people find the time for Second Life? It seems like most people are too busy working multiple jobs and trying to keep up the payments on their credit cards and upwardly-adjusting mortgage payments.’” Philip Rosedale responded, “‘Quit your real job and get one in Second Life! It isn’t possible for everyone, but there are more than 40,000 people who make money in Second Life every month.’” My advice, keep your real job.

            As I read the interview about Second Life on the Freakonomics blog, Rosedale’s response to one of Dubner’s questions made me think, people have lost touch with reality. The question was “‘Are there any virtual goods which actually cost more than their real world counterparts (at Linden dollar/USD conversion rates)?’” The answer was the polar opposite of what I expected. Rosedale said, “‘What a great question! Well, not too many yet, but unique items like virtual clothing from top designers have been sold at in-world charity events for thousands of real dollars.’” Even though I am a huge proponent of charity events, wouldn’t the buyer want the REAL Chanel suit instead of a VIRTUAL suit? If I ever paid thousands of dollars for chic designer clothing, I would be wearing it, not my avatar.   

Works cited:

Dubner, Stephen J. "Philip Rosedale Answers Your Second Life Questions.” The New York Times 2007. The New York Times. Web. 

Foretold by History - Draft

“This time is different: with everything on one network, the potential power to control is so much greater” (318).

            If you type in Yahoo.com or Google.com and press enter, the Internet opens up before you. Suddenly, this world founded on the principle of net neutrality abdicates control to the individual. In The Master Switch, Tim Wu, creator of the term “net neutrality,” discusses the power of potential monopolies such as, Google or Apple, and the threat they pose to the future neutrality of the Internet. Wu fearfully claims that “the future of Apple and Google will form the future of America and the world” (Wu 273) because these companies will continue to determine how Americans and the rest of the world share information. In contrast, William Gibson in Neuromancer envisions the “consensual hallucination” (Gibson 5) of cyberspace as a habitable place, with all the world’s data represented as visual, even palpable structures arranged in a matrix. He depicted a world where the individual could be more powerful than monopolies. Who is right? I believe that Wu's prediction of Google or Apple's destruction of net neutrality is more likely to occur than Gibson's prediction of a future "consensual hallucination." 

            Wu's fear that the power of Google and Apple, coupled with the design of the Internet could end net neutrality in the future is valid. The Internet is “an actual physical entity that can be warped or broken…it has always depended on a finite number of physical connections, whether wired or spectral, and switches, operated by a finite number of firms upon whose good behavior the whole thing depends” (Wu 317). Thus, there is a risk of losing the Internet’s diversity of content and services because it is vulnerable to centralization by a powerful firm, and Google and Apple are examples of dominant firms that just might have that power. Wu considers Google to be “the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch” (Wu 279). In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googlization of Everything, he claims that “we allow Google to determine what is important, relevant, and true…whatever shows up on the first page of a Google search is what matters in forming our sense of any reality” (Wu 281). In addition, Google qualifies as a monopoly because its market share of the search business is over 65 percent (Wu 281). Fortunately, Google currently operates as an open information system, providing customers with choice and freedom. However, given that the company is public and must answer to its shareholders, Google will most likely act in its best economic interest. If centralizing the Internet will enable Google to maximize its profit or eliminate competition, it will be done.

            Similar to Google, Apple is a large, powerful company that could destroy net neutrality by monopolizing the Internet. The App Store enables Apple to decide what content is available to consumers on the iPhone, the iPad, and the iTouch. Also, Apple could eventually control the content consumers have access to online. Tom Conlon of Popular Science declared, “once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly” (Wu 293). As Wu describes, “net neutrality is what prevents the telephone and cable industry from killing Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, blogs…” (Wu 286) as well as Google from destroying Bing, Yahoo, and other search engines. Net neutrality enables the Internet to operate in today’s fashion and it is essential to the prevention of Wu's feared future. Wu concludes The Master Switch with “The Separations Principle,” which proposes a constitutional approach to the information economy where all power that derives from the control of information is constrained and divided in order to avoid “the imminent perils of a closed system” (Wu 316). Wu’s principle promotes net neutrality as it relies on “cultivation of a popular ethic concerning our society’s relation to information…a strong general conviction that it is wrong to block sites on the Internet” (Wu 316).

            If Wu's fear that net neutrality may end seems imminent, in contrast, Gibson's prediction of "consensual hallucination" seems light years away. However, let it be said that some of Gibson's predictions in Neuromancer have come true. For example, Gibson’s networked artificial matrix of cyberspace has come to represent everything from computers and information technology to the Internet. In addition, Neuromancer may have directly influenced the way in which the World Wide Web developed as Gibson introduced the idea of a global network of millions of computers. He envisioned cyberspace as a habitable place, allowing people to “jack in” to a 3-D world using electrodes and neural interfaces. Cyberspace as a habitable place may be far-fetched; however, research has shown that Gibson’s concept of “jacking in” may evolve in the near future. “Researchers at Brown University have used a tiny array of electrodes to record, interpret, and reconstruct the brain activity that controls hand movement – and they have demonstrated that thoughts alone can move a cursor across a computer screen to hit a target” (Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control of Computer Cursor). Even so, the virtual worlds that we have today do not even remotely compare to the “consensual hallucination” of cyberspace that Gibson envisioned. He created the Simstim, a sensory experience where one person can view the world through another’s eyes as well as the Construct, which is the recording and preserving a person’s consciousness. The Simstim and Constructs seem to be unlikely future-tense technologies in contrast to Wu’s predicted future involving the potential end of net neutrality.

            How big a threat does Wu feel the centralization of the Internet poses? Enough of a threat that he has joined the Federal Government in an effort to protect net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission recently named Tim Wu “a senior advisor for consumer protection and competition issues that affect the Internet and mobile phones” (Tim Wu, Creator of the Term ‘Net Neutrality,’ Joins the Federal Government). Wu strongly believes in the importance of consumers having unregulated access to all Internet content and he will work with the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning later this month to assist with “‘long-range competition and consumer protection policy initiatives’” (Tim Wu, Creator of the Term ‘Net Neutrality,’ Joins the Federal Government) related to technology. As earlier discussed, Wu fears the possibility of AT&T, Apple, or Verizon controlling the Internet in the near future and influencing the content consumers can access online. Why is this fear rational? In The Master Switch, Wu describes the history of information industries in which corporations successfully monopolized a particular industry. Essentiall, Wu believes that history has foretold the eventual attempt to centralize the Internet. The Internet “naturally harnesses the power of decentralization and defies central control, but in the face of a determined power, that design alone is no adequate defense of what we hold most dear about the network” (Wu 317).
            In addition, Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts supports net neutrality given that the Internet revolution of the past twenty-five years has created millions of jobs and new industries. The freedom and openness of the Internet enables businesses to evolve and compete as e-commerce has grown over four hundred percent in ten years. Congressman Markey stated, “if we make certain that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity, we can ensure that consumers benefit and competition, innovation and investment continue to flourish” (The Importance of Net Neutrality).

            As Tim Wu and others fight in favor of net neutrality, Verizon has issued a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality policy. Verizon is concerned with the FCC’s assertion of authority for new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. Last year, the FCC lost when Comcast challenged a net-neutrality fine. Hopefully, the FCC has found a stronger legal basis for its policy and will be able to enforce net neutrality. Otherwise, Wu’s fear of a future where corporations control the Internet and its content may soon become a reality.

Works Cited:

Bilton, Nick. "Tim Wu, Creator of the Term 'Net Neutrality,' Joins the Federal Government.” The New York Times 2011. The New York Times. Web.

Brown University. "Researchers Demonstrate Direct, Real-Time Brain Control Of Computer Cursor. Science Daily 2004. Science Daily. Web. 

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print. 

Markey, Representative Ed. "The Importance of Net Neutrality." POLITICO 2010. POLITICO. Web.

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

16:06:58:17

           I traveled to Prague and Vienna for 16 days last summer. Today I volunteered for 6 hours at the non-profit Stop Child Abuse Now. I completed my economics homework tonight in 58 minutes. I spent 17 seconds staring at 16:06:58:17 on my Blackberry this morning while my jaw slowly dropped. Was I doing my morning facial exercises? No, it was my face registering my shock when I realized that I have talked on the phone for 16 days, 6 hours, 58 minutes, and 17 seconds since I bought my phone in August 2009. So, obviously I am a gabber and maybe dependent on my cell phone. I must confess that today I spoke to my mom, my dad, my grandmother, my boyfriend, and my best friend on the phone with each call lasting between ten to twenty minutes. However, let it be understood that I'm not homesick. Rather, I'm very close with my family so I’ll call frequently to check-in and catch up. I’ll also talk to my boyfriend on the phone almost daily because he goes to college in Maine and it was unusual for my best friend to call, she usually texts me.

             Why do I love to talk on the phone? It is the closest form of communication to real human contact besides video chatting. Why not Skype? It is so much easier to just dial a phone number than plan a Skype date. Many of my conversations take place as I'm walking to class or coming home from the library, which would be impossible if I was Skyping. Unfortunately, I can't “jack in” to William Gibson’s “consensual hallucination” and visit my grandparents in Florida or visit my best friend in California. So, in order to maintain my closest relationships, I call my family and friends and apparently I have spent 16:06:58:17 on the phone over the past eighteen months! After my dad told me countless times to wear a headset so that cell phone radiation doesn’t give me brain cancer, I’m glad I finally listened.

            Although Gibson’s idea of cyberspace as a “consensual hallucination” is fascinating, there is a reason we haven’t progressed technology in his predicted direction. I think that reason is because people appreciate human contact and cultural immersion. I don’t want to put on electrodes and enter a virtual world of Greece when I can actually travel there and interact with the native people and learn about their culture. After reading Neuromancer and analyzing my cell phone communication, my appreciation of face-to-face human contact has grown. Even though Gibson’s ideas of “microsofts” and electrodes may come to fruition in the near future, I hope that people remember that nothing compares to real live human contact.

Fixation on Technology

            To be completely honest, I am slogging through Neuromancer by William Gibson because of his technological language and dense descriptive language. I’d rather read about punk computer hacker Lisabeth Salander in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo who lives in the real world than about punk cowboy Case who lives in a virtual world. So, what do I really think about Neuromancer? I'm not sure if I even have a thorough understanding of what has occurred in the first part of the novel. However, I do know that as a cyberpunk novel, Gibson is expressing dark ideas about human nature, technology, and their respective combination in the near future. Twenty-seven years after its publication, it's interesting to see which of Gibson’s predictions about cyberspace, a world that he created, have come true. 

            For example, in Neuromancer, Gibson emphasizes the increasing presence of technology in the daily lives of humans. The characters in the novel constantly utilize, wear, and discuss various forms of technology. Case repeatedly uses a “deck” and “trodes” (this word is not googleable but they are goggles) to “jack into” cyberspace. Other characters insert tiny chips called “microsofts” into the spot behind their ears. Microsofts form a direct neural link and have the ability to transfer any information to the brain. If you're Paris and you never spoke a word of French before in your life, wouldn't it be great to use a microsoft and suddenly be fluent? Bonjour mes amis! I think Gibson envisioned a useful technological advancement, however, this chip doesn't exist…yet.

            Since 1984, the prevalence of technology in our daily lives has dramatically increased. In fact, I would venture to say that in 2011, humans are fixated on technology. Look around you; technology is everywhere. Think of how you live? What would you do without e-mail, texting, Microsoft Word, and the Internet? Yes, of course you would survive, but you might be helpless. Is this a sign that people today are too reliant on technology? Maybe. Also, we can't lose sight of the importance of human contact. There is no face to face in Facebook, so, rather than messaging your friend, meet him or her for coffee.

            Even though sometimes I feel as though I have narcolepsy when I read Neuromancer, I do think that Gibson was a visionary in his prediction of how influential cyberspace and technology would become in our daily lives. I also think that there still a lot more technology to come.