Who’s in control, anyway

I’ve been thinking about the rise of various technologies this week.  Brian Winston, in his discussion of the telegraph, points out the challenges that this disruptive technology had in getting acceptance at the time it was developed.  In fact, it took a war to make the first users realize that the telegraph could provide a distinct communication advantage.  He also cites the challenge that Francis Ronald’s version of the electrical telegraph had in getting accepted in the US. Once again, it took a dramatic shift in priorities to achieve critical mass. (I’m beginning to hear “Tipping Point” in the background..) Newspaper owners, aroused by competition for the freshest news, propelled the telegraph across the country.  Winston uses an interesting metaphor to describe the genesis of the competition.  “No longer, as in the eighteenth century, was it possible to scoop a rival with “late intelligence.” Now, the telegraph rendered news, like soft fruit, perishable—useless if delayed.”

It is interesting to contrast the deployment of the telegraph with the creation of the internet as the next radically disruptive technology.  Lawrence Lessig compares the internet to the telephone, which many would argue is the terminal level of the telegraph, as follows; “The tolled, single-purpose network of telephones was displaced by the untolled and multipurpose network of packet-switched data.” If the news is like soft fruit, very perishable, the internet renders information a level of immediacy that rivals electrons firing and disappearing in milliseconds.

It is also interesting to look at the regulatory environment that was present at the time both technologies became widely distributed.  It all boils down to ownership. Winston talks about the ambiguities in the ownership of the national telegraph system and the slow pace at which the public influenced lawmakers to take control.  Lessig talks about cyberspace (created by the internet) as having its boundaries “imposed through code, not through some body of government.”

Is the public finally getting involved in ownership of their communication technology, or will this be another case of commercial interests taking control away?  Lessig gives us some clues to think about when he talks about how the one-to-many architectures of publishing (newspapers, television, books, and radio) are complemented by the internet world in which anyone could become a publisher.  He goes on to argue that commerce, while it has a role in shaping and regulating cyberspace, doesn’t have the final say.  But, neither does government! He says; “the struggle in cyberspace will not be government’s to control, it will be to assure that essential liberties are preserved in this environment of perfect control.”

Cyberspace theorists have been talking about the question of control since it began.  The earliest generation of architects were non-commercial, largely researchers.  As more and more applications were developed and more people entered cyberspace, questions began to appear about intellectual property, piracy, free speech and access.  These tensions are just getting started as more platforms (mobile, peer-to-peer etc.) are built and more people use the internet for news, commerce and search.