“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment