This Software...

“…is distributed under the Generic Public License.”

Oh, how I love to see those words in the About webpage of my software!  Being the kind of person who frequently turns to the internet when he needs a new program, the presence of open source software has been invaluable to my computing experience.  Being a slight technology junkie, or as some colleges like to call it “computer science major”, I constantly find that I need software that Microsoft Office just won’t cover.  However, instead of running out to Best Buy and spending anywhere from $50-$250, I routinely open up my browser, type in my query, and almost instantly get presented with freeware for any application that I would need.

One would naturally wonder then, what practical purpose could freeware serve?  Why would anyone conceivably spend time and produce content that they will gain no monetary reward from?  True, some may be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but most cite the logic that they are creating and advancing the quality of the internet and the future of its users.  Without freeware, some of the content produced on our internet would not exist, and some of the most talented creators of media and software would never have gotten started in their craft.

Let me explain.  The ability of freeware allows anyone to partake in the creation of content that few would pursue under a purely closed software system.  Because it’s free, someone that has an interest in a particular area of software can explore it, sacrificing only their time to do so.  Imagine that you had an interest in audio editing and Windows Sound Recorder just wasn’t cutting it.  You look online to find that Adobe Audition 3, no doubt great audio software, costs around $350 dollars.  Who is going to pay $350 dollars to investigate an area of interest when you aren’t even sure how much you will like the experience!  Luckily, because of open source, the user can download Audacity for free and have a basic audio editor that will satisfy all their beginner needs.  The same goes even if you want to edit a photo:  $200 in Photoshop or free in GIMP.  My personal favorite, 3D modeling software, which will cost you $3500 for Maya vs. free for Blender.  Who would ever spend that kind of money just to satisfy a notion of curiosity?  Luckily, we have open source software, and this allows the creativity and interests of novices to flourish which would have been impossible under a closed software system.  Some of these users even have the potential to create software of their own and contribute that to the online community.  “How creativity depends on a rich commons.  How one feeds on the other” (Lessig 6).

But wouldn’t then this abundance of free software destroy all closed software systems on the internet?  As we can plainly see from the examples listed above, not at all.  In fact, open software actually benefits these software developers.  See, since closed software does bring in revenue, this revenue can be utilized to develop this software to a state that most freeware does not have the resources to reach.  With a few rare exceptions, this allows closed software to contain more features, less bugs, and perform better than its freeware counterpart.  Once open source users outgrow their freeware, these software companies now have a new customer that is much more likely to invest in their software.  This is because these users now know they have an interest in this area and want software that can accommodate their newly acquired skillset.  Because of open source, we have a system that is friendly for beginners, benefits those advanced, and provides a means to a more creative and prosperous technological age.

Project 1 - Steering the Cycle

In the natural world we reside in, it is apparent that all things traverse this existence in cycles of creation and destruction.  Tim Wu feels that this constant interplay of rises and falls applies not only to the world of nature, but also to our created world of technology as well.  Wu professes that all major communication advancements throughout history have been part of a repeating pattern of small, diverse entities and large corporate titans.  "This oscillation of information industries between open and closed is so typical a phenomenon that…[Wu has]...given it a name:  "the Cycle"" (Wu 6).

If this has been so apparent in every information industry ever invented, how has the Cycle been permitted to exist for so long?  Why has no action been taken to ensure periods of free, open communication that promote growth and innovation?  Wu makes the compelling claim that this cycle will continue to occur, perhaps even for the most open communication innovation, the internet.  The main combative force to communication monopolies has traditionally been anti-trust legislation, but Wu argues that "by their nature, those particular laws alone are inadequate for the regulation of information industries" (303).  Additionally, Wu notes that the way to better regulate these industries and break the Cycle is through public opinion and insistence that popular values are maintained.  These two compelling points can be summed up as "the better part of compliance with rules of all sorts actually depends on the power of self-regulation, not the threat of force" (Wu 313).

The notion that government regulation is not the solution to communication monopolies may seem strange when first observed.  Historically, some of the most powerful and destructive monopolies of the twentieth century were broken up by government mandates, such as Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel, and this has always proved to benefit the consumer.  The reason that similar regulation is insufficient is that the dangers a consumer monopoly pose and a communication monopoly pose are radically different.  While consumers were threatened by high prices and unfair customer behaviors of these big businesses, this is almost always the opposite case for communication trusts.  Often, the quality of service and price are improved under these systems.  For example, when AT&T was initially broken up after trust legislation, the industry “experienced a drop in product quality…[and] the competitive industries that replaced…[AT&T failed]…to deliver even the fail-safe benefit of competition: lower prices” (Wu 161).  Because of this standard, “application of…[anti-trust regulation is]…triggered by manipulation of consumer prices and certain other particular abuses of market power” (Wu 303), which is not initially applicable to information monopolies.  In some instances, such as AT&T, the government will support the monopoly and even enforce legislation to keep it in power as long as it adheres to guidelines which, to this type of trust, are trivial.

Because of the standardized nature of regulations, they pose no threat to the real harm of these organizations:  the ability to stifle new and upcoming technological advancements.  This is why the Cycle has continued.  Any time that these monopolies feel any threat from a new innovation, whether it be the radio industry from the redefining properties of FM or even AT&T from the Hush-A-Phone, a simple piece of plastic, they use their pull to eliminate it from the marketplace.  They are able to accomplish this not only due to their size, but also surprisingly with help from the government.  This can be seen by the legal battles with the Hush-A-Phone or the restricting standards of the Code within the prime days of Hollywood.  The companies who were part of these acts often cited the logic that these steps were necessary to protect the integrity of their systems and benefit the consumer, but as Wu notes, “to grant any dominant industrial actor the protection of the state…is to arrest the Schumpeterian dynamic by which innovation leads to growth, and outcome that is ultimately never in the public interest” (308).

Public interest.  It’s interesting that Wu uses these choice words in this statement.  For this behavior, this “public interest”, is how he proposes that the Cycle could be broken and why our current internet has not yet experienced this total corporate takeover that other industries have fallen to.  The view of the public and their popular opinion towards an issue, while seemingly not a pressing factor for corporate and federal behavior, is in reality an influence that bears multitudes of weight.  There was a reason that the Bell monopoly had lasted for years while other trusts were shut down:  the American public liked AT&T.  They liked its service, they liked its pricing, and they liked the notion of a single connected America.  The legislation that dissolved this company was met with “an American public [who was] wearied and bewildered by the years its government had spent hounding the nation’s most reliable corporation” (Wu 195).  This kind of loyalty to a monopoly is unthinkable in today's corporate America.  The current general public opinion towards these entities, even one with a social consciousness like AT&T had, would be for their dissolution in favor of competition.

This matter of public opinion may really be the way to control these monopolies, as its influence over the internet is already apparent.  Our attitude towards an open internet has already affected the industry, as “Apple…has been…shamed into allowing apps…that compete with its own services.  Meanwhile Verizon…gains public applause by publically declaring itself an “open” company” (Wu 314).  The inverse effect can be seen in China where the censorship its net possesses is largely “private, undertaken voluntarily, rather than enforced by actions of the state” (Wu 314), as dictated by societal values.  While this has worked for the present, the looming shadow of the Cycle and corporate dominance can still be found, such by the potential pact of Google and Verizon.  We will soon see if the internet will be doomed to repeat the Cycle, just like all the industries who fell before it were destined to do.

One System, One Policy, One Problem

Monopoly.  Reading this word either one of two things either immediately popped into your head:  either a business entity that dominates and controls one of our many free markets, or perhaps the iconic Parker Bros. board game.  Focusing on the market defining bestseller which doesn’t include dice, people often almost always view this term with a negative connotation.  Calling on the knowledge we obtain in high school history class, we immediately associate the term “monopoly” with that of cutthroat and ruthless business practices of men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.  We view companies such as Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel to only care about profit margin, wiping out local family businesses in the process.  Consumers have been taught to deplore monopolies and what they stand for, as their control will ultimately hurt them at large.

This is why is so fascinating to me that perhaps the most influential and powerful monopoly in United States history was not only largely untouched by early 19^th trust busting, but was absolutely adored and supported by the general populace.  Although AT&T is perhaps the textbook definition of monopoly, it was left dissolved by decades due to two major reasons.  First, it was necessary in the early days to this technology to have enough power as a company to be able to spend the capital to connect a network of phone lines across the nation.  With AT&T doing this and bringing the United States into a new technological age, the government supported president Theodore Vail in the notion that it was necessary to have their amount of control on the industry to maintain this public utility.  While his company was just as cutthroat as other famous monopolies in protecting itself as you will see later in this entry, Vail’s motives behind it were far from pure profit.  Vail truly envisioned himself as a public servant, and that a monopoly was the only way to bring a united telephone service to America.

This is the motive behind the second reason Vail was left alone, is his willingness to work to control his power.  “In a manner nearly unimaginable today, Vail turned to the government, agreed to restrain himself, and asked to be regulated.  Bell agreed to operate pursuant to government-set rates, asking in exchange only that any price regulations be “just and fair”.” (Wu 55).  This is unheard of in today’s business world, as many companies would never, ever tolerate the federal government setting their prices.  With this in place, AT&T was able to provide quality service across the nation for reasonable pricing for decades.  This is Wu’s vision of the “golden age” of a new technology, in which a mogul, “defines a new type of industry, integrated and centralized [while] delivering a better or more secure product.” (10).  With this superior service and the security of the consumer in hand, one would naturally think that this is the way to a utopian future, where all industry follows the AT&T model of power but consumer responsibility.  This would be a dark future indeed.

Yes, you read that right.  Perhaps the worst thing that could possibly happen is for all industry to become government mandated monopolies.  The issue isn’t even inferior quality or a high price point.  When Bell was ultimately disbanded consumers actually saw in increase in price and “a drop-off in service quality utterly unexampled since the formation of the Bell system.”(Wu 161).  This issue is that the current unrivaled phenomena of our technological capability doubling every few years will cease and grind to a snail’s pace.  Technological innovation and development is driven by competition, as rival companies constantly try to create production that are better, faster, stronger.  Competitive companies look for that new, revolutionary product that will redefine the industry and upset the balance of power in their favor.  To these government regulated monopolies, innovation is the enemy.  They are threatened by any technological advancement that will destroy the industry they have worked so hard to maintain, to the extent that they will attempt to destroy it.  This can be seen in regulated monopolies through this time, whether it be a new competitor in the Hollywood monopoly, a new advancement such as FM radio, or even as simple as a piece of plastic shoved onto the end of AT&Ts phones.  With the support of the government, each of these examples crushed or delayed their competition in order to maintain their power.  The Hush-a-Phone is a forgotten memory, while the full power of FM radio is far from fully harnessed.  This would provide no incentive to create revolutionary new products that will just be crushed instantly if they threaten a big industry, and innovation will cease.  This practice of restricting technology can even be seen in some large corporate practices today.  Now imagine if this approach was applied to all facets of our industry.  It may be acceptable initially, but it presents a dark future indeed.