In a sense, the Internet is the poster child for this, because the alternatives funded and promoted by the telecom industry was so closed that it never grew. The rapid growth of the internet happened because the government funded it for many years (pre-ARPAnet, ARPAnet/NSFNet/etc, then Internet) before it was really ready to expand rapidly. Then, when it was growing rapidly, it funded people to study tech that allowed it to continue to grow rapidly.
AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.
>AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.
This is such a ridiculous statement I can't tell if it's sarcasm (from the post I guess not - but that's the kind og argument I'd make if I wanted to make a strawman argument on this), extreeme hyperbole or you really beleive it ?
I've studied the history of the internet and have also talked extensively with ppl on both sides of the discussion. At best we'd still be using ISDN which isn't much better than 56kbs
AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.