Technological Waves per Debora Spar

[sbarrera]

I started reading this book about waves of technological development, and thought it would make a great subject for comparison with saecular theory or historical cycle theory in general. I'm only part way through it, and here is what I've learned so far, as presented on my blog.

http://stevebarrera.com/ruling-the-waves...breakdown/

Ruling the Waves: A Saecular Breakdown

I've posted before about "books from the Third Turning that I didn't get around to until the Fourth Turning." Waiting on the bookshelf for some time has been Ruling the Waves, by Debora L. Spar. This book is subtitled "a History of Business and Politics along the Technological Frontier" and in the introduction discusses the Internet a bit. It was published in 2001 (pre-9/11!), when the commercial Internet was young and Web 2.0 was just getting going. The book was hoping, then, to shed some light on what was to come in the development of cyberspace.

The author has a premise that when a ground-breaking new technology is introduced, it goes through four phases of development before becoming a commonplace part of everyday life on which we depend. First there is the invention phase, involving just a few people, and then the entrepreneur phase, where risk-takers develop the new technology commercially. Next is what she calls a period of "creative anarchy," when the most successful entrepreneurs battle for supremacy in the marketplace, and finally the rulemaking phase, where those who now dominate the technology application push for a fixed legal structure within which to operate.

She goes through different waves of technology, and I was interested to see how what she describes compares to Strauss & Howe saecular theory. The first wave Spar analyzes is the wave of advancements that led to the Age of Discovery - but this happens over a long period of time (centuries) so bringing saecular theory into it seems difficult. The next technological wave was that of the telegraph, and here it is easier to do the analysis.

I was half-expecting to find that the Gilded generation were major players in the drama of the development of the telegraph, since they are the Nomad generation of the Civil War Saeculum. After all, the Nomad generation of the current saeculum, my generation, has had a big part to play in the rise of Internet technology. But what I found is that the the main players in the story (looking at the U.S. part of it) were all from two generations - Compromise and Transcendental. The Gilded are nowhere to be found, probably because they were too young.

The narrative of the development of the telegraph did track pretty well with the turnings of the Civil War Saeculum, however. The invention period occurs at the end of the Transcendental Awakening, the 2nd turning. It involves two key players, Samuel Morse (b. 1791, Compromise Generation) of course, and Alfred Vail (b. 1807, Transcendental Generation), who worked closely with Morse. The idea of transmitting electricity over wires had been known about for decades; their genius was in combining the transmission with encoding, to create information. They managed to get some public backing through Congress to build a line, but the enterprise failed.

So then came the entrepreneurs to buy them out, and build a private enterprise instead. A key player was Amos Kendall (b. 1789, Compromise), a former postmaster general who left his position specifically for this purpose. He proved that it was possible to raise funds privately to build a telegraph line, and once the public caught on to what the technology made possible, the money started flowing into more and more companies building regional lines. Other big time entrepreneurs of this period included Henry O'Rielly (b. 1806, Transcendental) and Cyrus Field (b. 1819, Transcendental), who built the first trans-Atlantic line.

Without going into too much detail, the competition became fierce, as well as costly to the companies involved. In the period leading up to the Civil War, that is the 3rd turning in saecular terms, there was fighting over patent rights and access to markets, as well as confusion sowed by competing signal standards and encoding methods. This is the "creative anarchy" period in Spar's terminology.

The winner of this period of conflict turned out to be Western Union, thanks in large part to the efforts of Hiram Sibley (b. 1807, Transcendental), who led it in its transformation into a telegraph company, eventually establishing the first transcontinental line. With this consolidation came standardization - the rulemaking period. After the Civil War, in the 1st turning of the next saeculum, Western Union became a huge and powerful monopoly, enough to worry people into pressuring the government to regulate it, though not much was done in the Gilded Age.

I just find it fascinating that the so many of the key players in the development of the telegraph were from the Transcendental generation, the Prophet archetype of the Civil War Saeculum. They were the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs equivalents of their time, and of this technological wave.

It wasn't until the end of the new saeculum, with the founding of the FCC, that private communication networks became thoroughly regulated. That was during the era of radio, which is actually the next technology covered by Spar's book. So I will continue reading Ruling the Waves, and report in another post what I discover.

[sbarrera]

It took over six months, but I finally got around to part II of this review series. Don't seem to getting much traction with it here, but I will post it anyway for completion. As I've progressed through the book, the tie-in to saecular theory has become less meaningful.

RULING THE WAVES REVIEWED, PART II
May 19, 2020

This is a continuation of an earlier post where I started reviewing the book Ruling the Waves, by Debora L. Spar, specifically attempting to tie the author’s thesis in with saecular theory. In that post I only got as far as the first technological wave, the telegraph. In this post I’ll cover the next two waves – radio and the late twentieth-century advancements in television. First, let’s recap the thesis of Spar’s book, summarized in my first post.

Quote:The author has a premise that when a ground-breaking new technology is introduced, it goes through four phases of development before becoming a commonplace part of everyday life on which we depend. First there is the invention phase, involving just a few people, and then the entrepreneur phase, where risk-takers develop the new technology commercially. Next is what she calls a period of “creative anarchy,” when the most successful entrepreneurs battle for supremacy in the marketplace, and finally the rulemaking phase, where those who now dominate the technology application push for a fixed legal structure within which to operate.

Now, when looking at the telegraph, it was fairly easy to align the development of the technology with the turnings of the Civil War Saeculum. The invention phase happens at the end of the second turning, the entrepreneurial and market free-for-all phases during the third turning leading up to the Civil War, and then the rule-making period comes with the rise of Western Union during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age.

The next two waves, as described by Spar, are a little more compressed in time. The story of radio comes in two halves. The first one is dominated by the best known figure in the history of radio, Guglielmo Marconi (b. 1874 – Missionary peer). He was not just an inventor, but also an entrepreneur, and managed not only to make radio a feasible technology, but also to completely control the market via his patents during the 1910s.

But Marconi’s dominance was undermined by two factors. The first was nation-state governments, which recognized the security implications of wireless communication and used their authority to constrain Marconi’s monopoly power. The second factor was the development of the next generation of radio technology. Marconi’s system used spark gaps to generatate pulses of electricity and transmit signals in Morse code – it was essentially wireless telegraphy. What was really wanted was a way to send signals on continuous waves. Then sound, even music, could be transmitted. It would transform radio into wireless phonography, which is how we experience it today.

This is the second half of the radio story, a sort of mini-wave of its own. The invention phase was primarily the work of an engineer named Reginald Fessenden (b. 1866 – Missionary), and occurred at the same time that Marconi’s creation was prominent. The entrepreneurial/creative anarchy phase took place in the first part of the 1920s. It was kicked off by an important development, the formation of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in 1919. This was an innovation of its own in the commercialization of communications – RCA was an organization that controlled radio stations without controlling the technology of radio. This was the beginning of the broadcasting industry. Marconi’s system became obsolete and his patents worthless, and his empire crumbled.

In the first half of the 1920s, radio was in a period that definitely matches Spar’s creative anarchy phase in technology develoment. Small stations operated by amateurs – “radioheads” – sprung up everywhere, broadcasting whatever music they could get their hands on. This became too chaotic to be tenable, since by their very nature broadcast signals interfere with one another. Order came with laws passed in the late 1920s to regulate bandwidth, and with the emergence of broadcasting corporations which controlled networks of radio stations and could operate them in a coordinated fashion. The first of these was the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), and before long ABC and CBS came along – the Big Three which moved on to the world of television broadcasting and which are still prominent today.

So Spar’s entire cycle of four phases of technology development can actually fit into the space of one decade. The fact that radio’s story is ensconced within the third turning of the Great Power saeculum fits that era’s heady, fast-paced reputation. The subsequent development of television takes place in the next first turning, but Spar actually skips over that entirely. Her example from the history of television specifically relates to the rise of satellite and digital TV.

This is another fast cycle, and takes place within the third turning of the current Millennial saeculum – in the 1990s, the last decade before the publication of Spar’s book. It starts with the rise of SkyTV, powered by the relentless ambition of Rupert Murdoch (b. 1931 – Silent). The new techonology in question was satellite broadcasting, and the key to SkyTV’s takeover of the British market was the fact that Britain’s tight television regulations did not cover this particular type of broadcasting.

By taking advantage of this regulatory gap, Murdoch was able to penetrate the British television market with a unique brand, one that threatened Britain’s conservative and cultured self-image with trashy “American-style” content. SkyTV quickly got into financial trouble, which Murdoch handled by bringing in legendary executive Sam Chisholm (b. 1939 – Silent peer). But no sooner had Chisholm straightened things out, than SkyTV was hit by a new wave of techonological innnovation and forced to adjust to that.

This new wave was digital broadcasting, which basically reimplements signal encoding in such a way that far more channels can fit within the same bandwidth of electromagetic radiation. Consequently, providers can offer more content and choices, to presumably leverage for more profit-making. You may remember this transistion, which for consumers was disruptive since it meant their old analog systems were going to become obsolete. You may remember complaining and a sense of consumer powerlessness in the face of inexorable progress. It’s a done deal now, but at the time that Spar’s book was published was an ongoing process of negotiation and new rulemaking.

What’s interesting about these different techonological waves is that as they progress across the twentieth century, “ruling the wave” becomes as much a matter of navigating the regulatory environment as of pioneering a new techonological application. This comes with the growing sophistication of both corporate enterprise and government oversight. But even as the focus of the stories has shifted from individual inventors and entrepreneurs to giant corporations and milestone regulatory acts, there is still room for strong personalities to exert their influence.

The last part of the book covers computer and Internet technology. I will finish reading it and conclude these reviews in a future post.

[pbrower2a]

This is remarkable, amazing insight.

I have typically considered technology highly capricious as a driver of society. Obviously financing, without which nothing gets done, matters greatly -- as does formal organization and the ability to market a technology. Telegraph to radio (through wireless telegraphy) and then television does not move smoothly. Still photography to moving pictures and recorded sound did not harmonize until 1929, and after that the content of entertainment changed from largely live (vaudeville and the infamous burlesque) to recorded. Technological refinements matter greatly... but even with that I enjoy recordings of Rachmaninov performing the solo parts of his piano concertos and Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini from as early as 1929 -- Rachmaninov was a superb pianist in his own right, and who better knew how to perform his piano works and parts? Then there is Gershwin as his own interpreter... recordings also
obviously limited by his demise before the really good recording technologies of the 1940's.

OK, I am discussing communications and entertainment, but such is much of our lives, especially during the Plague of 2020, when live entertainment is largely in hiatus.

[sbarrera]

(05-20-2020, 02:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is remarkable, amazing insight.

I have typically considered technology highly capricious as a driver of society.  Obviously financing, without which nothing gets done, matters greatly -- as does formal organization and the ability to market a technology.  Telegraph to radio (through wireless telegraphy) and then television does not move smoothly.  Still photography to moving pictures and recorded sound did not harmonize until 1929, and after that  the content of entertainment changed from largely live (vaudeville and the infamous burlesque) to recorded. Technological refinements matter greatly... but even with that  I enjoy  recordings of Rachmaninov performing the solo parts of his piano concertos and Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini from as early as 1929 -- Rachmaninov was a superb pianist in his own right, and who better knew how to perform his piano works and parts? Then there is Gershwin as his own interpreter... recordings  also
obviously limited by his demise before the really good recording technologies of the 1940's.    

OK, I am discussing communications and entertainment, but such is much of our lives, especially during the Plague of 2020, when live entertainment is largely in hiatus.

A big part of Spar's insight is that, in order for technology to be broadly applicable, there have to be standards, which ultimately are limitations. The best possible techonology is never what is widely adopted, as I believe has been discussed on an audiophile thread here. What's "good enough" will do. In addition, for efficient delivery of the technology application, it is better to have large, consolidated organizations. So we went from a plethora of telegraph providers to Western Union, from a plethora of radio operators to NBC/ABC/CBS.

To your point about live to recorded: Unfortunately for live theater/music. it's far more efficient to deliver entertainment via recording. A handful of actors can perform to an audience of millions. Thousands of other actors struggle to make ends meet. But the truth is, live theater, and live music, are better. There is a more direct emotional connection between performer and audience member. 

Don't even get me started on the effects of the Plague of 2020. 

[pbrower2a]

Obviously the only way to get Herbert von Karajan's magnificent recording of Bruckner's eighth symphony with the Vienna Philharmonic is through a recording, as the Maestro died in 1986. Do you like the cinematic performances of Katharine Hepburn? You will need a recording.

OK, recordings are now convenient enough and cheap enough that one can often get a CD or video for about the same price as a pack of cancerettes.

Radio was more suited to local production for a longer time because it was not as expensive as television. When she was young (back in the early 1950's) my mother did radio shows for a small-town radio station with a limited market. (I wounder what she could have done in television had she been living in Kalamazoo or Lansing at the time. But TV is expensive for reasons other than technology of broadcasting images as opposed to sound bereft of images. Television requires that people have special make-up and wear the right clothes. The devices used for TV broadcasting of small-city news in a small market were cheesy back in the early 1960's (thus a story of a gas-station robbery in a town in "Bedlam, Adams County, Michigan" -- fictional town and county to protect the innocent) might be nothing more than a county map with the town of Bedlam pointed out).

But even radio went to a star system even if the star is only "Rash Libel" (get it?). The difference between radio stations isn't what it used to be because.. radio can specialize more, and local personalities do not matter so much.

[sbarrera]

(05-20-2020, 10:59 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Obviously the only way to get Herbert von Karajan's magnificent recording of Bruckner's eighth symphony with the Vienna Philharmonic is through a recording, as the Maestro died in 1986. Do you like the cinematic performances of Katharine Hepburn? You will need a recording.

Good point, and we wouldn't want to lose that.

[sbarrera]

I finally finished the book and came here to post the last part of the three part review.

http://stevebarrera.com/ruling-the-waves...-part-iii/

Ruling the Waves Reviewed, Part III
by Steve

This is the last of three posts where I review the book Ruling the Waves, by Debora L. Spar. This actually took me nearly two years to do, which is not my usual pattern at all, but this was as much a research project as a good read.

The goal of the project was to relate the thesis of the book - that ground-breaking technology goes through four phases of development before becoming commonplace - to the cycles of four turnings in Strauss & Howe generational theory. In generational theory, alternating patterns of generational archetypes lead to a pattern of social eras with first decreasing, then increasing degrees of social order. And since Spar's work describes a pattern of an unregulated market transforming into a well-regulated one, there might be some correlation.

Spar breaks her narrative up into the stories of different specific technological waves: the compass/age of navigation, the telegraph, radio, satellite/digital television, cryptography for the masses, PC operating systems, and finally digital music. What I found and related in the first post of this series is that the story of the telegraph actually lined up pretty well with the turnings of the Civil War saeculum. In the second post I related that the next waves - radio and television - had happened on more compressed timelines, and so didn't line up with the roughly 80 year period of a saeculum. Instead, they sometimes fit entirely within one decade! Part of this reflects, I speculated, a greater sophistication on the part of corporations and government entities in responding to technological change.

Finally, looking at the personal computing/Internet related waves, we see similarly that they occur within a tighter timeframe. But here we must also face the fact that Spar's book was published in 2001, and the whole issue of how these technologies would be regulated wasn't necessarily fully resolved yet - in other words, the pattern isn't complete. This is where Spar is using her thesis to provide guidance about what might be coming in the future (from a 2001 perspective).

What I will note about the last three technology waves is that the Boomer generation is predominant in their stories, in both the initial invention phase, and the subsequent entrepreneurship phase. Let's start by looking at encryption. The inventors of public-private key encryption were all Boomers: Whitfield Diffie (b. 1944), Martin Hellman (b. 1945) and Ralph Merkle (b. 1952). So were the inventors of the RSA algorithm: Ron Rivest (b. 1947), Adi Shamir (b. 1952) and Len Adleman (b. 1945). And the guy who put these together to give us the popular PGP software used by the masses on the Internet is also a Boomer: Phil Zimmermann (b. 1957).

The invention phase of encryption started in the recent second turning (in the 1970s), and continued into the third turning (the 1980's and 1990s). The entrepreneurship phase began in the third turning with the rise of the Internet, as Zimmermann developed PGP in the early 1990s. At the time of Spar's book's publication, the legal status of PGP was up in the air, but today it is accepted by government in the US and EU, and is widely used. It's also open source, meaning that Zimmermann, though he's the entrepreneur in this story, has not become obscenely wealthy because of it. I see this particular story as a great example of the Boomer generation's role in computing technology's transition from being used solely by big corporations to becoming a technology for the masses.

This is, of course, the story of the personal computer. The Boomers who are most associated with this tale of the empowerment of the common man are Steve Jobs (b. 1955) and Bill Gates (b. 1955). The latter figures prominently in the next wave of which Spar writes - the PC operating system. But it should be noted that the inventors in the first phase of this wave were other men. The first hobby PC was the Altair, invented by Ed Roberts (b. 1941 - Silent), and the OS which Bill Gates famously licensed to IBM was based on an earlier operating system called Q-DOS, invented by Tim Paterson (b. 1956 - Boomer). These inventions happened in the last second turning, in the 1970s.

Gates was the entrepreneur in this technology wave; you might even call him the chief entrepreneur. He did get to be one of the wealthiest men ever, after all. His famous arrangement with IBM, which made him wealthy, happened at the end of the second turning, in 1980. Throughout the third turning, his dominance of the marketplace only grew, to the point that his company, Microsoft, was being called "the evil empire." At one point, it was challenged by another technological development, which Spar covers in the same chapter: the web browser, an alternative platform for information access that might have derailed Microsoft's control over software applications on its system.

With the World Wide Web, the invention phase was very fast, occurring in just a couple of years in the early 1990s. The inventor was yet another Boomer, Tim Berners-Lee (b. 1955). The entrepreneur whom Spar singles out for her narrative is a Gen Xer, Marc Andreessen (b. 1971). He developed the first highly popular web browser, Mosaic, later Netscape Navigator. Depending on your age, you may or may not have used it. Microsoft tried to muscle Netscape out of the business by bundling their web browser with their operating system, precipitating a famous anti-trust lawsuit, U.S. v. Microsoft.

So this technology wave actually gets to the rule-making phase in the narrative. The rule-maker in this case is a judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson (b. 1937 - Silent). His ruling was that Microsoft was indeed practicing monopoly, and would have to break into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components. But in a settlement after appeal, this was rescinded. Spar's book was published before this settlement, so her narrative misses this plot twist. And what was the final result of this attempt at regulation? I would say that Microsoft remains a powerful monopolist, but in a field where new monopolists have arisen, with the coming of yet another technology wave which this book could not predict: smartphones, which come with their own OS, and the application platforms on them, which completely circumvent the web.

The last technology wave discussed in Spar's wonderful book is digital music, specifically the MP3 format. This was invented by committee in the late 1980s and 1990s, a committee of mostly European peers of the Boomer generation. The entrepreneurs of the next phase are Gen-Xers who, in the 1990s, leveraged MP3 technology to build music-sharing empires which made them money, but were of dubious legality and sparked legal wars with established music labels, and many of the music artists as well. These are Sean Parker (b. 1979) and Shawn Fanning (b. 1980) of Napster, and Mike Robertson (b. 1967) of MP3.com. Their companies didn't survive the legal battles ultimately, though at the time of Spar's book publication, the rule-making phase was only just underway, with the formation of the Secure Digital Music Initiative, which was attempting go come up with standards for digital music usage that would satisfy all stakeholders.

In the end the SDMI got nowhere, and other standards were developed for digital rights management. These are in use today in the age of streaming music and video, which gives consumers access to huge libraries of content for an affordable price. The old content owners, and the artists, probably, have lost out in this deal. But it's the way the market ended up regulated: in a way that could meet the huge consumer demand which digital encoding inevitably wrought. I discussed this in a review of another book; the streaming model provides what people want, and allows them to get it in a way that is fair and legal.

It's too bad that Ruling the Waves left off in 2001, and didn't get into the smartphone and social media era, and the rise of the now dominant Big Tech companies. To my knowledge, the author has not continued this study approach with any other technology waves. But I think that if she did look at developments of the past twenty years, she would agree with this assessment of the dominant tech corporations today - Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and yes, still Microsoft: they are the winners of the once dynamic competition, during the early days of the Internet, among different information technologies and platforms.

The world standardized on Big Tech's platforms and technologies because they provided the best experience, or because it was just easier for everyone. As with Western Union and the telegraph, they are the monopolists who emerged from the free wheeling creative anarchy phase to become the rule makers. As with the story of the telegraph, this happened during a saeculum's fourth turning, which in the case of the current saeculum began in 2008. And as was the case with Western Union, the Big Tech companies are resented for their monopoly power.

Conclusion

Debora Spar's Ruling the Waves is a remarkable book, with a brilliant insight about the history of technology and the patterns of technological change. The idea that technology comes in waves, with different phases of development, from a period of loose rules to a period of tight rules, reminded me of the similar idea with respect to social norms in Strauss & Howe generational theory. Both theories tie into the concept of enantiodromia, the principle of things or states tending to transform into their opposites. That is why I embarked on a review of Spar's book through the lens of generations theory.

What I found is that, as is generally the case with these high level theories, the patterns are not perfectly there. But where they are there and do line up, it is striking that the periods of greatest technological innovation and development of markets for new technologies which Spar identifies match the social era from Strauss & Howe theory that has the greatest degree of individualism and tends to be focused on commercialization and free markets. This suggests a clear relationship between social eras and the degree of technological innovation, and means that some generations, by dint of their location in history, are more strongly associated than others with technological change.

I should note one caveat: half of Spar's examples are from recent history; they are digital technologies developed at the end of the twentieth century. So of course they are all stories from the same social era, meaning there is sample bias in the survey. It would be wonderful if Spar's principle were applied across a great many of the major technological developments of the past few centuries - would we find that technological innovation is clustered in particular social eras? It would also be wonderful to hear Spar's take on the developments in digital technology over the past twenty years. How different the world of the Internet looks today than it would have to a professor of business writing at end of the "dot com" era!

To the best of my knowledge, however, this book is the only example of this line of research. It took me two years to read it, and nearly two decades after it was published to boot, but I still found it insightful and a great read.

[sbarrera]

Continuing this thread with another blog post, this time reviewing a book by Tim Wu that looks at a the same pattern that Debora Spar identified, though the two authors have never collaborated, to my knowledge.

http://stevebarrera.com/book-review-the-master-switch/

My latest reading escapade has me perusing The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, by Tim Wu. He is a law professor who is currently an official in the Biden White House, specializing in technology and antitrust. He is also, in fact, the coiner of the term "net neutrality," which is just the legal concept of a "common carrier," as has been applied to telephone communications, but extended to the Internet.

In The Master Switch, Wu analyzes technological and industrial development in the fields of telephony, radio, film, television, and computer networking. He identifies what he calls "the Cycle," in which monopolist companies consolidate control over particular information technology markets (the empires), only to be challenged when new technologies emerge in periods of "creative destruction," borrowing a term from Joseph Schumpeter. But whoever comes out on top in the new technological era simply replaces the previous monopolist. A good example is the telephone overtaking the telegraph, with the once powerful Western Union (powerful enough to decide Presidential elections) taken down - if not out - only to be replaced by a new dominant monopoly, in the form of AT&T.

The cycle as Wu describes it reminds me of the technological waves from Debora Spar's book Ruling the Waves, which I have already reviewed in a series of blog posts. They are very similar concepts, although to my knowledge neither author has ever recognized the work of the other. Despite the similar concepts which are their subjects, the two books are different in structure. Spar focuses on one technology at a time, whereas Wu jumps around between the technological fields, sticking to an overall chronological narrative. Either way, both authors end up in the Internet era, though Wu arrives ten years later. I noted in my review of Spar's work that it would be great to get her opinion on how the Internet wave looks now, seeing as she was writing at the end of the dot com era (just around Y2K), but I don't think she pursued the subject any further. Wu has followed up with additional books, though I haven't read any of them.

In addition to the Cycle, Wu identifies what he calls "the Kronos Effect", wherein an established monopolist uses its power, and usually its close relationship with government, to suppress new technologies, just as Kronos in Greek myth devoured his own children for fear of being replaced by them. A good example is how the NBC/CBS duopoly of radio broadcasting networks successfully prevented the development of television until the technology was firmly under their own control. This is why TV started with the "Big Three" networks already established in radio (ABC split off from NBC in 1943), not because there was any natural reason TV couldn't have developed differently. There were independent television companies throughout the 1930s, but they were unable to grow their markets, because of the anticompetitive actions of the established radio companies.

I didn't know much about the early days of television until I read this book, and it gave me a good overview. The story is just one of the many things I learned about the history of technology and of the people who were intimately involved with the invention and development of so much that we take for granted today. Wu's book is well written, and with short chapters is a quick and easy read. The jumping around between the stories of different technologies can be a little confusing, but it's made up for by the overarching narrative of "the Cycle" and the efforts of powerful interests to suppress it.

Interestingly, Spar didn't include the dawn of television in her history of technological waves. When I read her book, I found it odd that she skipped from radio in the early 1900s straight to satellite television in the late 1900s. But I speculate now that it this was because she couldn't fit the early history of television into her wave pattern. Like Wu, she identifies the invention and entrepreneurship phases of new technologies. But unlike Wu, she doesn't cover the scenario where entrepreneurship is suppressed by a powerful entity maintaining its information empire, destroying competitors before they can even arise. The mid-1900s, a staid and conformist social era, was precisely such a period in the history of information technology.

Concern for this pattern of anticompetitive economics imbues Wu's book. It's particularly concerning for information technology, because the corporations who dominate it control not just how we access information, but also what information we access. For instance, during the so-called "Golden Age of Hollywood," private interests, via both the vertically integrated industry of the studio system and the privately conceived and enforced censorship of the Hays Code, controlled the nature of mass media content available to filmgoers for a solid two decades or more. Eventually both the industry and the social constraints were broken down, but conceivably much creative potential was stifled and lost forever in the interim. Conceivably, political orthodoxy was enforced; it is not a coincidence that the McCarthy era in politics occurred at the same time.

Similarly, the dominance of "Big Tech" in today's Internet economy means a small number of corporations might end up becoming the gatekeepers of what news and opinion is available for consumption by Internet users, if they haven't already. What is cancelling and deplatforming in today's social media environment if not another version of a private sector censorship committee controlling what is considered acceptable free speech? Is a Twitter mob much better an arbiter of what is morally correct than was the National Legion of Decency? And if it is a better arbiter, because it represents a majoritarian viewpoint, then are we not living under mob rule, as Paris was during the French Revolution?

That raises the question of whether the impetus for controlling and shaping information is supply-side - driven by profit-seeking corporations and power-seeking governments - or demand-side - driven by a social need for consensus and conformity. I think it could be both. If there is a demand for order and regulation from below, it would only make it easier for those providing the supply from the top. And if the demand from below is for the loosening of regulation, it would be easier for the spirit of entrepreneurship to flourish. In other words, there might be a social cycle working in conjunction with an industrial cycle.

This is not something Wu addresses directly, being as he focuses on corporate actions and law, as befits his expertise. But he does hint at it in his narrative, recognizing how loosening social morality contributed to the decline in compliance with the Hays Code (compliance with which was always voluntary - as in not coerced by law). The idea of connecting the social cycle with the technological cycle or wave deeply interests me, and is what I have attempted to do in these series of posts looking first at Debora Spar's book, and now at Tim Wu's. Both authors recognized the same pattern, which must be deeply connected to human nature and human needs.

To conclude the book review, this is a very good read with a lot of fascinating tidbits about the development of information and communication technology, including biographical information about key players. You always get this human element in these narratives about the invention and commercialization of technology; personality is part of how technology empires are created. As already mentioned, patterns in economics and industry are connected to patterns in social mores and social needs, and in any social era there always seems to be someone poised to take advantage of social and technological change. A "man for his time and place," so to speak.

In The Master Switch, Wu worries about the tendency for entities like corporations to arise and establish monopolistic control of new information technologies. Writing in 2011, he wonders if it will be different for the Internet, since by its nature it encourages openness and interoperability. From the vantage point of 2021, I think he would agree with me that the new monopolies have formed; we don't have the term "Big Tech" for nothing. There may well be inexorable forces of history and human nature at work here, driving us collectively toward this state. This means a big challenge for Wu, in his official policy role, guiding the President on technology and competition, but it doesn't mean that it isn't worth the effort to mitigate against the downsides of information empires, or even try to stop them from forming altogether. I wish him the best.

[nguyenivy]

Can we use the knowledge of how technologies were developed & used over prior times to figure out how the coming Turnings will play out at least in the realm of technology? The 'wild west' era of the 1990s online environments didn't become noticeable until long after it passed. Is it likely that 'big tech' will not be broken up/disturbed during the upcoming 1T due to a social environment that demands stability? It seems likely the tech structure will not be messed with (except to make it accessible to more people via funding more broadband infrastructure development) any time soon considering COVID-19 made us all a lot more reliant on it.

[pbrower2a]

I'm not sure that the technologies that we get themselves imply great breaks from old practices. Telegrams replaced messengers; telephone calls supplanted telegrams; my use of e-mail is practically a reversion to telegraphy. Getting around lower Manhattan by car is now slower than it was by horse and carriage 140 years ago. Much of early television was really vaudeville, with Carol Burnett as possibly its last exponent. Much else was live sports, which means that instead of having an announcer simply talking into a microphone ("Ted Williams digs in at the plate; here's the wind-up by (Whitey) Ford, and... it's a hard drive into the center-right gap. Mantle plays the carom off the wall, and Williams reaches second)" some people have cameras going.

Human character changes much less than one might expect, and technology more responds to it than shapes it.

[sbarrera]

(09-27-2021, 08:27 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: Can we use the knowledge of how technologies were developed & used over prior times to figure out how the coming Turnings will play out at least in the realm of technology? The 'wild west' era of the 1990s online environments didn't become noticeable until long after it passed. Is it likely that 'big tech' will not be broken up/disturbed during the upcoming 1T due to a social environment that demands stability? It seems likely the tech structure will not be messed with (except to make it accessible to more people via funding more broadband infrastructure development) any time soon considering COVID-19 made us all a lot more reliant on it.

I think that all in all, the masses are happy with "Big Tech" despite the complaining about their power that does happen. The reasons aren't complicated: it makes everyone's lives easier to have just a few companies to rely on for what you do online - buy stuff, message people, share vacation photos, check headlines. Information monopolies form because people would rather have a few simple, consistent portals to access for their needs rather than a plethora of options which just means more work. Eventually, come the next 2T, the social mood will involve questioning the status quo and there will be room for outliers and outsiders again.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2021, 07:59 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 08:27 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: Can we use the knowledge of how technologies were developed & used over prior times to figure out how the coming Turnings will play out at least in the realm of technology? The 'wild west' era of the 1990s online environments didn't become noticeable until long after it passed. Is it likely that 'big tech' will not be broken up/disturbed during the upcoming 1T due to a social environment that demands stability? It seems likely the tech structure will not be messed with (except to make it accessible to more people via funding more broadband infrastructure development) any time soon considering COVID-19 made us all a lot more reliant on it.

I think that all in all, the masses are happy with "Big Tech" despite the complaining about their power that does happen. The reasons aren't complicated: it makes everyone's lives easier to have just a few companies to rely on for what you do online - buy stuff, message people, share vacation photos, check headlines. Information monopolies form because people would rather have a few simple, consistent portals to access for their needs rather than a plethora of options which just means more work. Eventually, come the next 2T, the social mood will involve questioning the status quo and there will be room for outliers and outsiders again.

I suspect this is correct, but that doesn't exempt Big Tech from Big Taxes.  These are inevitable at this point, and today's new taxes, like savvy bank robbers, will go where the money is.  We've tried handiing the rich the checkbook,and got nothing for it, so it's time for paybacks all around.

[Eric the Green]

(09-28-2021, 07:59 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 08:27 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: Can we use the knowledge of how technologies were developed & used over prior times to figure out how the coming Turnings will play out at least in the realm of technology? The 'wild west' era of the 1990s online environments didn't become noticeable until long after it passed. Is it likely that 'big tech' will not be broken up/disturbed during the upcoming 1T due to a social environment that demands stability? It seems likely the tech structure will not be messed with (except to make it accessible to more people via funding more broadband infrastructure development) any time soon considering COVID-19 made us all a lot more reliant on it.

I think that all in all, the masses are happy with "Big Tech" despite the complaining about their power that does happen. The reasons aren't complicated: it makes everyone's lives easier to have just a few companies to rely on for what you do online - buy stuff, message people, share vacation photos, check headlines. Information monopolies form because people would rather have a few simple, consistent portals to access for their needs rather than a plethora of options which just means more work. Eventually, come the next 2T, the social mood will involve questioning the status quo and there will be room for outliers and outsiders again.

That's a good point, but there are other companies that get a following besides the biggest ones. Tik Tock has encroached on youtube, for example, and it's hard now to post anything on youtube and get any views, it's too big. So people are more open to other outlets now. I heard there are other companies besides amazon. Facebook has competition from reddit, and there are others if I remember correctly. There are still other search engines, although I think the (inadequate) google is still the best one.

I think the next 2T will be more radical than that, and the entire tech way of life will be questioned and changed, especially in the Awakening's early years. Meanwhile, other companies will grow now, and in the coming years, and the would-be monopolies will have their power cut back.

[Eric the Green]

A lot of unfamiliar terms in your review, like "public-private key encryption" RSA PGP....

[pbrower2a]

(09-28-2021, 11:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2021, 07:59 AM)sbarrera Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 08:27 PM)nguyenivy Wrote: Can we use the knowledge of how technologies were developed & used over prior times to figure out how the coming Turnings will play out at least in the realm of technology? The 'wild west' era of the 1990s online environments didn't become noticeable until long after it passed. Is it likely that 'big tech' will not be broken up/disturbed during the upcoming 1T due to a social environment that demands stability? It seems likely the tech structure will not be messed with (except to make it accessible to more people via funding more broadband infrastructure development) any time soon considering COVID-19 made us all a lot more reliant on it.

I think that all in all, the masses are happy with "Big Tech" despite the complaining about their power that does happen. The reasons aren't complicated: it makes everyone's lives easier to have just a few companies to rely on for what you do online - buy stuff, message people, share vacation photos, check headlines. Information monopolies form because people would rather have a few simple, consistent portals to access for their needs rather than a plethora of options which just means more work. Eventually, come the next 2T, the social mood will involve questioning the status quo and there will be room for outliers and outsiders again.

I suspect this is correct, but that doesn't exempt Big Tech from Big Taxes.  These are inevitable at this point, and today's new taxes, like savvy bank robbers, will go where the money is.  We've tried handing the rich the checkbook,and got nothing for it, so it's time for paybacks all around.

It is reasonable to heavily tax the big, lucrative part of the economy and not assume that its growth solves all problems.We see plenty of dying or shrinking industries, and they often get taxed heavily. I'm not going to say that high taxes killed Sears, as Sears had other problems (like being unable to recruit and keep the sorts of people who might nave innovated within to make it an up-to-date way of doing business).

I predict that we are going to use novel technologies to do such things as fit clothing to people so that there won't be as much waste in merchandising the wrong stuff. That could take laser measuring to fit fabric to our contours and automated cutting. That would put high technology into the stodgy business of selling clothes.

We are almost certainly leaving the neoliberal era in which the consensus was that elite gain, power, and indulgence were the cornerstones of overall prosperity even when elite power, gain, and indulgence came at the expense of everyone else. Plutocrats are reliable only at creating wealth for themselves, especially if such requires the sweating of the masses. I'm not sure that the American economy was more efficient when real wages had shrunk for most people over forty years.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2021, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A lot of unfamiliar terms in your review, like "public-private key encryption" RSA PGP....

Public-private key encryption is the lynchpin of internet security.  It's extremely complicated math and not easy to use for encryption in general.  It's used to establish a secure link or shell, and the rest is handled by symmetrical and much less complex encryption.  RSA is similar, and the differences are too complex to wallow in.  PGP is an old encrytion standard (Prety Good Encryption) that's easy to break with modern analysis software and a laptop.