CONCLUSION

Although the evolution of organizational fields is characterized by uncertainty and non­linearity, the process by which it takes place is by no means random or incoherent (Perez, 2010; Padgett and Powell, 2012).

Viewing the social order as a system of layered social networks, constituting, for example, economic activities, cultural activities, kinship activities, religious activities, military activities, and so on, Padgett and Powell posit that new organizational forms (in this case organizational fields) emerge as a result of autocatalytic processes that occur when spillovers take place not only within a given domain but also across diverse societal realms (Padgett and Powell, 2012). Hence, we might posit that, as more users from dif­ferent domains become part of the Internet environment, a new transformation will take place.

What might it look like? One way to anticipate the long-term socioeconomic evolution of the Internet is to pursue the metaphor of weaving. Starting from today’s organiza­tional field we can follow the different threads, backwards as in an elaborate fabric, to see where they were picked up, dropped, and added along the way. Moreover, we can identify the junctures in the process, where critical choices led to major variations in the original design.

Today’s communication/media field is characterized by two major threads, which con­stitute competing techno-economic paradigms - the closed, top-down, profit-oriented, vertically integrated model, and the open, decentralized, peer-to-peer, sharing model. Significantly, both can trace their present modi operandi back to their precursors in the communication field.

The vertically integrated model draws its inspiration from the industrial age. It is best epitomized by the Bell Telephone system, which, although serving a semi-public function, was financed with private capital and propelled by the profit motive. Given its integrated monopoly, AT&T benefited not only from economies of scale and scope; it also cross­subsidized its services so as to provide universal service to all. Allying itself with the federal government by maintaining a unified network that served the country’s needs, AT&T was able to monopolize the field and be assured of a generous ‘rate of return’. At the same time, AT&T maintained its legitimacy by wooing the public with a highly suc­cessful public relations campaign. Equally important, while it maintained central control, it shared the network benefits and resources so as to satisfy all stakeholders In fact, so fixed was AT&T on its way of doing business, it lacked the incentive to push forward with innovative products, as, for example, in areas such as data communications.

The peer-to-peer model, as first developed by ARPA, is the antithesis of the vertically integrated model. Funded by government and focused on problem solving rather than profit making, the ARPANET was mostly user-driven.

When DARPA turned ARPANET over to the NSF, a TCP/IP platform served to aggregate users from multiple realms, including academics, businesses and non-profits. In the process, the NSF drew the telecommunication providers back into the fold, even subsidizing them, to build the mid-level network. However, even as the communication incumbents re-emerged, many much stronger than before, the TCP/IP-based end-to-end architecture, as well as much of the sharing, collaborative culture, has survived, providing a viable model for non-proprietary economic ventures such as open source.

Capitalizing on the broadband networks and data services market spawned by NSF, as well as the development of radical new application technologies such as the World Wide Web and the browser, traditional telephone incumbents and the growing number of new Internet service providers competed fiercely for their share of the newly deregulated market. Nevertheless, the TCP/IP-based end-to-end architecture, as well as much of the reciprocal collaborative culture, has survived. More importantly, this architecture, and the Internet governing institutions that helped to sustain it, has extended the Internet, and its modus operandi, to new communities and new users, allowing them to be produc­ers as well as users, all the while bringing their own unique creativity and perspectives to the fore. Today, as the field is increasingly contested, a much broader group of partici­pants will have their say.

What can this history tell us? Where does the future of the organizational field lie? While we cannot predict the future, we can - building on our analysis - identify some key variables:

• Governance structure: The field has yet to develop a stable governance structure.

• Market structure: A competitive market will depend on the continued ability of firms to employ innovative technology to generate externalities and increase market size. Absent innovation and growth, there will be fewer economies of scale and scope to sustain a large number of vertically integrated providers. Those oper­ating in the peer-to-peer tradition might survive - if not thrive - in this environ­ment by continually generating externalities and greater demand. To do so, they must continue to attract talent and maintain their user orientation, flexibility and penchant for innovation. Whether they will be able to do so will depend in part on the level of consolidation in the field.

• Legitimacy: Today’s users are far more active and vocal than those in the past. Hence, leading firms will require a convincing narrative that serves not only to motivate and drive their operations, but also to garner public support. The need for such a narrative will be all the greater given intense competition between pro­viders in general, and especially between companies pursuing competing modes of production. The less-traditional providers may hold an advantage in this regard, insofar as their origins are linked to a positive social as well as techno-economic narrative.

• The role of government: Organizational fields are relatively autonomous. Typically governments only step in when the market creates, or cannot solve, a major public problem, or when members of an organizational field cannot govern themselves.

In concluding, we should recall Douglass North’s proposition - history matters. But in terms of the future of the Internet, history is still in the making. This analysis sug­gests, however, that the future will depend on how, and by whom, the restructuring of the communication field is undertaken, as much as on the more or less definitive economic determinants.

NOTES

1. See http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/ARPANET#Growth_and_evolution; accessed 10 July 2014.

2. EDUCAUSE is a ‘nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education through the use of information technology’. See http://www.educause.edu/; accessed 11 July 2014.

3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers;accessed 10 July 2014.

REFERENCES

Abbate, J.E. (1994), ‘From ARPANET to Internet: A history of ARPA-sponsored computer networks, 1966— 1988’, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Abbate, J.E. (2000), Inventing the Internet, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Agre, P. (2003), ‘Peer to peer and the promise of internet equality’, Communications of the ACM, 46 (2), 39-42.

Amin, A. and J. Hausner (1997), Beyond Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity, Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, NH, uSa: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Arthur, W.B. (2009), The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, New York: Free Press.

Bailey, J.P. (1995), ‘Economics of internet interconnection agreements’, Journal of Electronic Publishing, 1 (1&2), accessed 7 July 2014 at http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0001.109.

Bailey, J.P. and L.W. McKnight (1995), ‘Internet economics: What happens when constituencies collide’, paper presented at INET’95, Honolulu, accessed 7 July 2014 at http://18.7.29.232/bitstream/handle/1721.1/1531/ final_paper2.pdf?sequence=2.

Beinhocker, E.D. (2006), The Origins of Wealth: Complexity and the Radical Remaking of Economics, Boston, MA: Harvard University Business School Press.

Beniger, J.R. (1986), The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Blumenthal, M.S. and D.D. Clark (2001), ‘Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new world’, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 1 (1), 70-109.

Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. (1981), A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade, Report No. 4799, Arlington, VA: DARPA.

Borgatti, S.P., A. Mehtra, D.J. Brass and G. Labianca (2009), ‘Network analysis in the social sciences’, Science, 323 (892), 1-5.

Braudel, F. (1980), On History, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Brock, G.W. (1981), The Telecommunications Industry: The Dynamics of Market Structure, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, I. (ed.) (2013), Research Handbook on the Governance of the Internet, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid (2001), ‘Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective’, Organizational Science, 12 (2), 198-213.

Buchanan, M. (2002), Small World Networks and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. (2005), Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital, New York: Oxford University Press.

Cave, M. and R. Mason (2001), ‘The economics of the Internet: Infrastructure and regulation’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17 (2), 188-201.

Cerf, V. (2004), ‘The Internet phenomenon’, Computer Networking: Global Infrastructure for the 21st Century, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/cra/networks.html.

Chandler, A.D. (1977), The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clark, D.D., J. Wroclawski, K.R. Sollins and R. Braden (2002), ‘Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s Internet’, in Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGCOMM Conference, Pittsburg, PA, pp. 347-56.

Coleman, J.S. (1988), ‘Social capital and the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S95-S120.

Coll, S. (1986), The Deal of a Century, New York: Atheneum Press.

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) (1996), Realizing the Information Future: The Internet and Beyond, National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Couper, E.A., J.P. Hejkal and A.L. Wolman (2003), ‘Boom and bust in telecommunications’, Economic Quarterly - Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 89 (4), 1-24.

Crandall, R.W. (1989), ‘Fragmentation of the telephone network: New directions in telecommunications policy’, in P.R. Newberg (ed.), Regulatory Policy: Telephony and Mass Media, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 49-65.

Drake, WJ. (1995), The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies For US Policies, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.

Fleming, L. and M. Marx (2006), ‘Managing creativity in small worlds’, California Management Review, 48 (4), 6-27.

Fligstein, N. (2001), The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First Century Capitalist Societies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fligstein, N. and D. McAdam (2012), A Theory of Fields, New York: Oxford University Press.

Freeman, C. and F. Louca (2001), As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolution to the Information Revolution, New York: Oxford University Press.

Frischmann, B. (2001), ‘Privatization and commercialization of the Internet infrastructure: Rethinking market intervention into government and government intervention into the market’, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 2 (1), 1-37.

Galambos, L. and J. Pratt (1989), The Rise of the Corporate Commonwealth: US Business and Public Policy in the Twentieth Century, New York: Basic Books.

Ganley, P. and B. Allgrove (2006), ‘Net neutrality: A user’s guide’, Computer Law and Security Report, 22 (6), 454-63.

Geller, H. (1995), ‘Reforming the US telecommunications policymaking process’, in WJ. Drake (ed.), The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for U.S. Policy, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, pp. 115-35.

Gilroy, A.A. (1984), The American Telephone and Telegraph Company Divestiture: Background, Provisions, and Restructuring, Report No. 84-58E, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481-510.

Granovetter, M. and R. Swedberg (eds) (2011), The Sociology of Economic Life, 3rd edition, New York: Westview Press.

Gray, H.M. (1940), ‘The passing of the public utility concept’, Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics, 16 (1), 8-20.

Greenstein, S. (2001), ‘Commercialization of the Internet: The interaction of public policy and private choices or why introducing the market worked so well’, in A.B. Jaffe, J. Lerner and S. Stern (eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 151-86.

Gulati, R. and M. Gargiulo (1999), ‘Where do interorganizational networks come from?’, American Journal of Sociology, 104 (5), 1439-93.

Hafner, K. and M. Lyon (1996), Where Wizards Stay up Late: The Origins of the Internet, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hart, J.A., R.R. Reed and F. Bar (1992), ‘The building of the Internet: Implications for the future of broadband networks’, Telecommunications Policy, 16 (8), 666-89.

Hauben, M. (1997), ‘Behind the Net: The untold history of the Internet’, in M. Hauben and R. Hauben, Netizens, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://www.colum bia.edu/~hauben/book-pdf/CHAPTER%207.pdf.

Hauben, M. and R. Hauben (1997), Netizens: On the History of Usenet and the Internet, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hodgson, G.M. and T. Knudson (2010), Darwin’s Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Inkpen, A.C. and E.WK. Tsang (2005), ‘Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer’, Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 146-65.

Kahn, A.E. (1983), ‘The passing of the public utility concept, a reprise’, in E.M. Noam (ed.), Telecommunications Regulation Today and Tomorrow, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 3-37.

Kauffman, S.S. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self Organization, New York: Oxford University Press.

Kazumori, E. (2003), ‘Coordination and decommissioning: NSFNET and the evolution of the Internet in the United States 1985-95’, SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02-07, Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, accessed 7 July 2014 at http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/02- 07.pdf.

Kolko, G. (1963), The Triumph of Conservatism: a Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, New York: Free Press.

Lazonick, W. (1991), Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leiner, B.M., V.G. Cerf and D.D. et al. (1997), ‘The past and future history of the Internet’, Communications of the ACM, 40 (2), 102-8.

Lemley, M.A. and L. Lessig (2001), ‘The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era’, UCLA Law Review, 48 (4), 925-72.

Lerner, J. and J. Tirole (2002), ‘Some simple economics of open source’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1 (2), 197-223.

Lessig, L. (2004), Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity, New York: Penguin Press.

MacKie-Mason, J.K. and H.R. Varian (1994), ‘Some economics of the Internet’, in W. Sichel (ed.), Networks, Infrastructure and the New Task for Regulation, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Mahoney, J. and D. Rueschemeyer (2003), ‘Comparative historical analysis: Achievements and agendas’, in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-38.

Meyer, J.Q. and B. Rowan (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-63.

Mokyr, J. (1990), The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, New York: Oxford University Press.

Noam, E.M. (1988), ‘The future of the public network: From the star to the matrix’, Telecommunications, 22 (3), 58-59, 65, 90.

Noam, E.M. (1995), Interconnecting the Network of Networks, Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1990), Critical Connections: Communications for the Future, OTA- CIT-407, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Padgett, J. and W. Powell (2012), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Passy, F. (2003), ‘Social networks matter. But how?’, in M. Diani and D. McAdam (eds), Social Movements and Networks Relational Approaches to Collective Action, New York: Oxford University Press.

Pelkey, J. (2014), Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Innovation: A History of Computer Communications 1968-1988, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://www.historyofcomputercommunications.info/.

Perez, C. (2010), ‘Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1), 185-202.

Pfeffer, J.A. and N.G. Salancik (2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pierson, P. (2004), Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2011), ‘The economy as an instituted process’, in M. Granovetter and R. Swedberg (eds), The Sociology of Economic Life, 3rd edition, New York: Westview Press.

Powell, W. and P. DiMaggio (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rogers, E. (1993), The Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.

Rohlfs, J. (2001), Bandwagon Effects in High-Technology Industries, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rosenzweig, R. (1998), ‘Wizards, bureaucrats, warriors, and hackers: Writing the history of the Internet’, The American Historical Review, 103 (5), 1530-52.

Russell, A.L. (2006), ‘“Rough consensus and running code” and the Internet-OSI standards war’, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 28 (3), 48-61.

Ryan, J. (2010), A History of the Internet and the Digital Future, London: Reaktion Books.

Saltzer, J.H., D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark (1984), ‘End-to-end arguments in systems design’, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 2 (4), 277-88.

Schafer, M.T. (2011), Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Schiller, D. (1982), ‘Business users and the telecommunications network’, Journal of Communications, 32 (4), 84-96.

Schwartz, D. (1997), Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Scott, R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sebenius, J.K. (2002), ‘Negotiating lessons from the browser wars’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 43 (4), 43-51.

Shampine, A. and H. Sider (2007), ‘The telecom boom and bust: Their losses, our gain?’, Milken Institute Review, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://www.milken-inst.org/publications/review/2007_10/54-60mr36. pdf.

Shirky, C. (2008), Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, New York: Penguin Books.

Shirky, C. (2010), Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected World, New York: Penguin Books.

Skocpol, T and M. Somers (1980), ‘The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22 (2), 174 97.

Sterling, B. (1993), ‘A short history of the Internet’, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://www.internetsociety.org/ internet/what-internet/history-internet/short-history-internet.

Stigler, G.J. and C. Friedland (1962), ‘What can regulators regulate: The case of electricity’, The Journal of Law and Economics, 5 (1), 1-16.

Stone, A. (1991), Public Service Liberalism: Telecommunication and Transitions in Public Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tapscott, D. (1996), The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Network Intelligence, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Temin, P. (1988), The Fall of the Bell System, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tsai, W. and S. Ghoshal (1998), ‘Social capital and value creation: The role of interfirm networks’, Academy of Management Journal, 41 (4), 464-76.

Tunstall, J. (1986), Communications Deregulation: The Unleashing of America’s Communication Industry, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Uzzi, B. (1997), ‘Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 35-67.

Uzzi, B., L.A.N. Amaral and F. Reed-Tsochas (2007), ‘Small world networks and management science research: A review’, European Management Review, 4 (2), 74-91.

Wang, Z. (2006), ‘Technological innovation and market turbulence: The dot-com experience’, Review of Economic Dynamics, 10 (1), 78-105.

Watts, D. (1999), ‘Networks, dynamics, and the small world phenomenon’, American Journal of Sociology, 105 (2), 493-527.

Watts, D. and S. Strogatz (1998), ‘Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks’, Nature, 393 (6684), 440-42. Weber, S. (2004), The Success of Open Source, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wheeler, D.C. and M.E. O’Kelly (1999), ‘Network topology and city accessibility of the commercial backbone’, Professional Geographer, 52 (3), 327-39.

White, H. (1992), Identity and Control, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Windrum, P. (2000), ‘Back from the brink: Microsoft and the strategic use of standards in the browser wars’, Maastricht: MERIT, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, accessed 9 February 2015 at http://arnop.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=292.

Wu, T. (2011), The Master Switch, New York: Knopf.

27.