11–20 of 21 posts
"The iterative experimentation that eventually birthed the commercial Internet was delayed until the 1990s not because the technology wasn’t ready - the underlying infrastructure had been invented in the 1960s. Rather, the problem was that AT&T convinced policymakers that it was too dangerous to give outside players access to their closed access system."
Worth reading even just for this reminder: "The iterative experimentation that eventually birthed the commercial Internet was delayed until the 1990s not because the technology wasn’t ready - the underlying infrastructure had been invented in the 1960s. Rather, the problem was that AT&T convinced policymakers that it was too dangerous to give outside players access to their closed access system."
I doubt the consumer Internet could have happened before PCs became widespread in the 80s and early 90s, so it's misleading to attribute the delay solely or primarily to regulatory shenanigans by AT&T.
He is wrong. Everything is tech now. And other things are the value add. For example, if you are a law firm, or a real estate company, and if your tech is not operating then your company is not operating. If your Internet is offline, or your local network, then your business is not running. If your company has a security breach, then you will have massive reputation problems. If you're a small business, you need to h…
Big-tech billionaire who long ago got paid now wants to keep big tech from growing.
He's actually a reasonably altruistic tech m/billionaire like Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Tony Hsieh (RIP), Jim Clark (Silicon Graphics, Netscape), Mark Cuban, Esther Dyson, Heidi Roizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that kind of making the point? Big tech is too big to fail
"Too big to fail, but not too big to bail out" was what was learned after 2008. Why wouldn't tech want to get in on that graft?
That breaking them up wasn't even discussed in government or media shows how powerful their influence is.
Worth reading even just for this reminder: "The iterative experimentation that eventually birthed the commercial Internet was delayed until the 1990s not because the technology wasn’t ready - the underlying infrastructure had been invented in the 1960s. Rather, the problem was that AT&T convinced policymakers that it was too dangerous to give outside players access to their closed access system."
Corporations were on the Internet before the 90s, so I'm going to assume by "commercial Internet" he means "consumer Internet" (e.g., AOL). I doubt the consumer Internet could have happened before PCs became widespread in the 80s and early 90s, so it's misleading to attribute the delay solely or primarily to regulatory shenanigans by AT&T.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations were on the Internet before the 90s, so I'm going to assume by "commercial Internet" he means "consumer Internet" (e.g., AOL). I doubt the consumer Internet could have happened before PCs became widespread in the 80s and early 90s, so it's misleading to attribute the delay solely or primarily to regulatory shenanigans by AT&T.
there was no "internet" at that time. Corporations mainly had private phone systems, and bought computers from IBM or others.. Some network engineers in Salt Lake City Utah sold custom networking, and from Boston.. but those lines connected only to specific others.. Overall, "no"
He is wrong. Everything is tech now. And other things are the value add. For example, if you are a law firm, or a real estate company, and if your tech is not operating then your company is not operating. If your Internet is offline, or your local network, then your business is not running. If your company has a security breach, then you will have massive reputation problems. If you're a small business, you need to h…
Big Tech is term for big tech companies. Meta, Alphabet, MS, Apple and few more, the companies that have monopolized large sections of the Internet/Mobile and tech in general and are using that power + money to expand further into related/unrelated areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Too big to fail, but not too big to bail out" was what was learned after 2008. Why wouldn't tech want to get in on that graft?
Too big to fail, but also not big enough to be broken up. If the government's priority was safeguarding the financial system, as soon as the crisis passed the big banks would be broken up to reduce risk if any one of them failed. That breaking them up wasn't even discussed in government or media shows how powerful their influence is.