4 ms·
The idea that a decentralized fault tolerant network is such a novel concept that it required a government to think of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Eve
by poet 16y ago
The idea that a decentralized fault tolerant network is such a novel concept that it required a government to think of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even the telephone system is decentralized. There are decentralized fault tolerant systems all around us as examples.
It doesn't require the government to think of it, it requires the government to implement it. It would be a massively stupid decision from a business point of view to implement the Internet as it exists today. There's much more money in centralized networks. I think this should be obvious from the fact that (1) at the time all commercial companies were building centralized networks and (2) today text messages cost upwards of $1k per megabyte. The only reason why the Internet is architected the way it is today is because of government funding. One the government set the Internet in motion towards a decentralized, packet switched network, it could not be overcome by commercial companies.
- WalterBright 16y agoFidoNet is the counterexample that shows the government was not required to implement a global, decentralized, fault tolerant network. Before that, the phone system was a national, decentralized, fault tolerant network built without benefit of government funding, research, or protocols.
- CamperBob 16y agoBefore that, the phone system was a national, decentralized, fault tolerant network built without benefit of government funding, research, or protocols. Which phone network are you talking about? Certainly not any I'm familiar with. I'm no evangelist for government-financed R&D, but I don't think you could possibly have picked a worse example (http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html) for your argument.