One on One: Tim Wu, Author of ‘The Master Switch’

Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who came up with the term “net neutrality” in a research paper, has just written a new book, “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires,” published by Knopf. The book chronicles the rise and fall of companies that develop new technologies, and discusses the future of the Internet. The following Q&A is an edited version of an interview with Professor Wu:

Q: What do you teach at Columbia?
A: I teach copyright law, communications and occasionally criminal law.

Are you a lawyer?
I am a lawyer by creation, but not by practice. I’m a lawyer technically, but I wouldn’t hire me to write your will.

When did you first use the term “net neutrality”?
I was working in Silicon Valley in the early 2000s for a company that sold technologies designed to filter and block areas of the Internet. Something about it didn’t sit well with me. So I wrote a paper in 2002 for a conference that explained my thoughts on this. Originally, the phrase I was promoting was “broadband discrimination,” and I also said “network neutrality,” to capture the concept, which ended up becoming the default.

Did you have any idea this term would become so widely used?
No. It’s very strange, in some sense, to have part of your career associated with a single phrase.

What is your new book about?
My book is a history of information empires in America and the rise and fall of companies like ABC, NBC, AT&T, and eventually Facebook and Google. It’s largely a story of the American affection for information monopolists and the consequences of that fondness.

How did you get the idea for the book?
I grew up in the age of the open Internet, and I started to wonder, “Have we been here before?” I wondered if an open Internet would eventually be a closed system.

What do you predict for the future of the Internet?
I think the natural tendency would be for the system to move toward a monopoly control, but everything that’s natural isn’t necessarily inevitable. For years everyone thought that every republic would eventually turn into a dictatorship. So I think if people want to, we can maintain a greater openness, but it’s unclear if Americans really want that.

Talk a little bit about your discussion of AT&T in the book.
In the 1910s, AT&T promised the American public that they would do no evil. Their president, Theodore Vail, turned to the government and the American public and he said we are a public utility and our duty is to the American people before profit. In there was the grand bargain that we keep making between the great information monopolists and the American nation. AT&T was the 1910 counterpart to Google’s pledge to do no evil.

When did AT&T become “evil”?
Most monopolists create a golden age that lasts a decade or more,  and then slowly they became more interested in being in power. AT&T became dangerous when they began to suppress technologies that might threaten their rule.

Which technologies did AT&T suppress?
In the book I tell the story of tape recording technology, which AT&T itself invented in the late 1920s, and then suppressed because they believed that the recording technology would lead to the abandonment of the telephone.

Do the technology monopolies surrounding the Internet look different than the past?
The question is whether there is something about the Internet that is fundamentally different, or about these times that is intrinsically more dynamic, that we don’t repeat the past. I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle.

What do you think will happen?
My gut tells me that a return to 1950s prime time seems outlandish, but I can imagine a future where we have choices but something will be lost.

Which companies do you fear the most?
Right now, I’d have to say Apple.

What about Facebook?
I think Facebook is looking for a mentor, they are looking for a role model. Right now it is choosing between Apple and Google in this great war between open and closed. It is possible that whatever side Facebook takes will have a lot to do with the future of how we communicate.

What worries you about Apple?
As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control.

Is this book about business or power?
I write about business in the way that writers have traditionally written about war. I’m interested in the quest for dominance, in industrial warfare. I believe that capitalism, by its nature, is about conflict, and ultimately the life and death of firms.

So what makes Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg get up in the morning?
Joseph Schumpeter, the famous economist, wrote about a special breed of men who are motivated not by money or comfort, but the will to found a private kingdom. The men in my book are motivated by power, and the information industries offer possibilities unavailable to people who sell orange juice or rubber boots, a power over people’s minds.

Do these C.E.O.’s make decisions that aren’t in the best interest of the public?
As I show in the book, there’s a similarity to power and great nations. The man who starts as the great reformer often ends his career by becoming increasingly paranoid and abusive. There’s a cycle, and the problems usually shows up when the great leader feels his power is threatened, like a political leader.

What part of these “evil” acts are the C.E.O.’s and what part are the employees?
I think the mogul makes the medium, but it’s also true that once a firm has been in existence long enough, it begins to have a life of its own.

Do you think that will apply to Apple?
Yes.

But who will take over it from Steve Jobs?
I think it may not matter. I think the mark of Steve Jobs is firmly placed on that firm, that it will continue to be him long after he passes from leadership.