Comments on

Chapter 2: Battle of the Networks

Ben on paragraph 43

MSN began back in 1993-1994. It was put on hold because of the DoJ investigations. Developers had access to it for a while. MSN can be considered of the “old” CompuServe model.

go to thread »
Posted July 14, 2010  6:02 pm
Esovistinscic on the whole section

Hi !.
You may , probably curious to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you need
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your choice That`s what you desire!

I`m happy and lucky, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a proper companion utilizes your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://bankinfodata.net and go! Let`s take this option together to become rich

go to thread »
Posted November 23, 2009  2:18 pm
The Internet made me do it. | FischFood for thought. on the whole section

[…] the stark contrast in how each approached his discussion of technology. Zittrain’s article, “Battle of the Networks” , from The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It was very obviously socially deterministic, an […]

go to thread »
Posted September 28, 2009  8:18 pm
A Third Party | I Am Not A Copyright Lawyer on the whole section

[…] as Jonathan Zittrain notes in “Battle of the Networks,” (Chapter two of The Future of the Internet, and How to Stop It), that used to be the case. […]

go to thread »
Posted September 28, 2009  5:15 pm
AT&T’s position has not changed | The "Right" Way to Copy on the whole section

[…] Chapter two of The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it, Jonathan Zittrain “illustrates the relationships among the standard layers that can be said to […]

go to thread »
Posted September 26, 2009  8:35 pm
L. Rogers on paragraph 22

Another historical case study in this context would France Telecom’s Minitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel). It would be interesting to imagine an alternate history in which a socialist bureaucracy heavily influenced the early development of networked systems

go to thread »
Posted July 24, 2008  11:48 pm
L. Rogers on paragraph 2

The author paints an interesting dystopian picture speculation, but alternative histories (along the lines of ‘what if the allies had not won WWII’ & etc.) seem to assume that no other serendipitous factors would have turned the arc of social/technological development to an outcome not predicted by its antecedents. Heck – perhaps with this scenario we would all be zipping along on our personal Brother (TM) jetpacks now?

go to thread »
Posted July 24, 2008  11:13 pm
Jim Richard on paragraph 16

Prodigy, was something completely different. It was what the Web would become, only about 10 years before it’s time. At the time all of the other services were totally text based. Prodigy did amazing things, though at a cost! Yes it was mainframe based ( all services were), and centrally controlled ( all services were). But it was “Graphic” in nature. This was a first, it was called video text, and it predated windows, ( at least in beta). It was done with In-House written technology called TBOL (trintex basic object language). That ran on an hierarchy of Mini-Computers running in local “Bunkers)”, IBM’s TPF ( same as SABRE), and DB2 (IBMs relational database system).

For it’s day Prodigy was a major innovation. Windows didn’t exist, DOS ruled the realm. The Prodigy diskette, kicked DOS off the system and loaded a propriety OS that understood TBOL. There were data cache’s up and down the line to speed delivery of content. The TBOL content was not graphic in nature instead it was instructions on how to display Graphics on the target device. Thus optimizing a 2400 baud connection, while enabling graphic delivery.

I know, I was there in 1987. I had a compuserve account from 1988-2002, I got my first Internet account with “Chris.com” AKA XO communications in 1992, which was where I learned UNIX on their Shell Accounts.

go to thread »
Posted July 7, 2008  6:37 pm
Jim Richard on paragraph 19

The reason was, at the time there were no alternatives…. The internet was not available for commercial use. Even though PC’s were fairly ubiquitous by 1983, large scale processing power wasn’t, you still needed mainframes to do anything that scaled up. Mainframes, have great scalability but also have great inhibitors due to their cost. Around 1983, I was paying ~$1.65 per cpu second. We are talking about millions of dollars at stake. Everything had to be done very carefully or not at all. This was why PC’s started to boom around that time. In this time frame , we put PC’s on our programmers desks ( 3-5K dollars per, in 1980 dollars) just to cut down our Mainframe CPU costs.

Jim

go to thread »
Posted July 7, 2008  6:12 pm
Jim Richard on paragraph 10

AT&T had restrictions well into the 1980’s .. If you wanted to use a modem other then an AT&T DataPhone, you had to lease the Data Access Arrangement (DAA) from AT&T. The DAA is a fairly simple electronic interface between the modem and the network, that is designed to electrically isolate the modem from the network to prevent “damage to the network”. In the early 1980’s the only place you could get a certified DAA was from AT&T. 3rd party vendors were not allowed to incorporate them into their own designs. While if you leased a DataPhone, the circuit was built in.

go to thread »
Posted July 7, 2008  5:59 pm
Orval on the whole section

Ah, I remember the shiiiiiiiiish-shuuuuuush of the modem so well. And garish BBS logins. Kind of miss it all, really.

go to thread »
Posted June 8, 2008  2:10 pm
Bartimaeus on paragraph 10

Sounds like AT+T had ossified a bit.

go to thread »
Posted June 3, 2008  4:15 am
Bartimaeus on paragraph 2

That would have been a strange world indeed.

go to thread »
Posted June 3, 2008  4:13 am
robert forenza on paragraph 37

The key point here is needed more now then ever and that is “little concern for controlling the network or it’s users” I feel that this is akin to freedom of thought. More importantly open networks, open data, open user identity, no secrets. Users will behave do quality work because they are netliving in the open-this would lead to alot more then rough consensus but toward quality consensus.

go to thread »
Posted May 14, 2008  7:27 pm
Anonymous on paragraph 1

Yes, Apple ][, it’s a ‘personal’ computer.

go to thread »
Posted May 2, 2008  9:10 pm