Assignment 6: due Monday, March 9, 2009 at 5pm via bSpace:


Friedlander and Fischer tell the histories of new information technologies primarily in terms of business strategy.  What advantages are to this approach in trying to understand the history of information?  What disadvantages?  Give examples from one or both of the readings.

Some exemplary responses:

I think that the main advantage of using the business strategy viewpoint is that we can easily see the oft-overlooked factors which hindered or abetted the spread of a technology. Such factors are, even today, routinely ignored or misunderstood by the average consumer.  What we often fail to realize is that there is always a reason (good or bad) for the way technology, or any product, is marketed.  This is especially true for the adoption of the telephone, which, for 15 years was tied solely to a single company (and even long after Bell's patents expired, the greater portion of the budding industry was still controlled by that company).  Therefore it is impossible to understand the adoption of such technologies without looking closely at its parent corporation, and, by extension, its business practices.  On the other hand, such a style of historical analysis ignores some of the more mundane problems of technological adoption.  In a world of email and Facebook, it is difficult to imagine the dramatic changes the telegraph and telephone wrought on a society with no prior means of (more or less) instant long-distance communications.  Indeed, Friedlander even comments that the political, military, and economic value of the telegraph was not truly appreciated for nearly a decade after its invention.  Fischer likewise glosses over the effect the telephone had on the lives of many: doctors, businessmen, and politicians able to communicate for the first time over distance without the need for clumsy Morse code.  The commercial approach these authors use fails to account for these social aspects of development. - Steven Liu

The success of describing the history of information technologies through analyzing business strategy depends on how influential the business was in shaping the use of the technology. The spread and adoption of telephone technology was greatly influenced by pricing, which was in turn influenced by the extent of competition between telephone companies. Until 1893, when Alexander Graham Bell’s patent on the telephone expired, telephone service and use of equipment were monopolized by the Bell company. The expiration created a new competitive environment where Bell's old approach, in which “the public interest received scant attention”, needed to change to compete with smaller independents, who expanded the technology into new markets by using cheaper rates and shared lines. Fischer sees this era of competition as transforming telephone service from “a business tool and a luxury good to a common utility”. His account of the technology from a business perspective is beneficial because its use was originally tightly controlled by the business organized around its invention. For other types of technology, where adoption is more accessible to individuals, or the federal government takes a stronger stance in shaping the spread and use of the technology, an account from the business perspective would be less successful. A focus on business also cannot fully illustrate how the adoption of technology changed the lives of users. -Jessica

It's true that Friedlander and Fischer tend to focus on business decisions in their accounts of telephony and telegraphy. At the same time, they don't ignore social or political history, and do a decent job of explaining the economic consequences of each technology for normal people. My tendency as a history student is to abhor bureaucratic minutiae (this is one reason I don't love presidential biographies) but it seems apt in these two readings. In each case, focusing at first on businessmen is a sensible approach because, as Fischer notes, "It was not at all obvious whom the telephone would serve and how." (40) Similarly, potential users of the telegraph "may not have believed that they wanted or needed virtually instantaneous communication... the postal service was sufficient for most of their needs." (Fischer 17) In this historical context, where the stories of early adopters are much less important than those of the corporate decision-makers, I can't fault the authors for focusing on business. Moreover, to their credit, each author at least pays lip service to other areas of history. Friedlander tracks the telegraph industry's dealings with government and other institutions like the Associated Press, and Fischer provides a periodic look at the cost of telephone service from its inception to the breakup of Bell's monopoly. -Samuel Ryan

Friedlander explains the development of the telegraph system in terms of how it shaped, and was shaped by, business needs. This perspective makes sense for a number of reasons, one of which both Friedlander and Fischer point out: the telegraph was "dominated by business interests" and was "rarely used for non-business purposes." One disadvantage, alluded to by Friedlander is that one could carry the argument further and examine how this technology in turn influenced culture. Specifically, the fact that prices for the same goods started to level out with the appearance of the telegraph most likely brought about increased homogeneity in 'taste,' given that the same products were becoming increasingly available to very specific income brackets. This is a cultural/social change and is worth examining. Fischer examines the development of the telephone industry in the USA from the perspective of its role as a consumer product. While this, too, is a valuable perspective, the telephone's use value as an interpersonal and public service facilitator far exceeds that of the telegraph. As such the perspective of business strategy is more limited when telling the story of the telephone than when doing so with the telegraph. -Josh

 Looking at the history of technologies through terms of business strategies offers logical explanations, in the form of patent/business owners' motives, for why that technology developed the way it did. Both Friedlander and Fischer offer accounts of the telegraph and the telephone as privately owned monopolies. As privately owned monopolies, these companies, such as Bell’s AT&T, got rid of all other companies to secure their own rights to determine costs. As such, prices remained high and a luxury item of businessmen, merchants and not part of the private citizen’s daily life. It also explains the government’s role in these developments. For example, The New Deal changed the regulatory atmosphere in the United States, and the government somewhat encouraged telephone diffusion by holding rates down, pressuring companies to serve outlying areas, and requiring interconnection. However what this kind of approach fails to touch on is the culture of the telegraph or telephone. Looking back to David Henkin’s approach on the emergence of the postal system, he offers mail technology in place with mass literacy, mobility, and people’s desire to communicate. -Andrea

During the late 19th centiry, capitalism was at arguably its most unrestrained.  So, when discussing technologies and forms of information access that emerged during this era, it is important to note their connection to the business context.
Friedlander’s article places serious significance on the issue of investment.  The telegraph had difficulty getting off the ground because it at first could not summon enough.  Investment reflects belief that the product will be viable – in other words, how much demand it will generate.  This says a great deal about the role of the technology in relation to social context.  In this sense, the business perspective is revealing.
However, looking toward the business end alone does not provide much meaningful insight into how people’s lives were qualitatively affected by the given technology.  Fischer explores the rise of telephone companies in terms of prevalence rates and cost.  He makes claims like telephones were still too expensive for middle class Americans before World War II, backing this up with figures like cost in terms of percent of income and cost relative to common goods like milk and bacon.  This does not tell us about the middle class American’s perception of the telephone or information access in terms of social significance.  That would require a consumer-centric look at the telephone, not a business-centric one.  -Alex Bigman

Analyzing the evolution of business models surrounding a new technology provides insight into consumer attitudes toward and demand for the technology.  For example, Friedlander points out that private citizens still found the postal service to be adequate for their communication needs, leading Western Union to target businesses as the primary market for the telegraph.  Such observations can provide evidence to understand how social phenomena such as westward migration and war relate to how access to information is perceived.  Setting aside financial and technological limitations, a settler may have preferred a letter to a telegram from distant relations due to the relative lack of restriction on length and content.  Consequently, the time delay of mail was not a significant drawback.  On the other hand, the outcomes of particular battles or casualty lists are information that people would want rapid access to, so news agencies would obviously prefer the telegraph to the mail.
Of course, analyzing business models only provides a partial account of the impact that a technology such as the telegraph had.  For example, how did the truncated language used in telegrams influence personal discourse, literature, or education?  Looking exclusively at business models fails to shed light on such questions. -Ned

The advantage in discussing the history of information through business strategy is that it highlights the competing interests that were involved in the development of these new technologies.  For example, with both the telegraph and telephone, there was a sole inventor who developed the technology, but without the right leadership and business model, the technology would not have been able to flourish.  Incidentally, the same person, Theodore Vail, had the right mindset to organize the business so that he maximized publicity, quality and overall business power for both inventions.  Also, by showing how effective these technologies can be for businesses, it allows dispersion and justification for domestic use.  Since the flourishing of business indirectly corresponds to better quality of life for society, business use began to tempt residents to start communicating through long-distance and how relationships among people began to change. The disadvantages to understanding history of information through business strategy is that it seems to concentrate only on profit-making as opposed to how it can benefit society.  Especially with the telephone, top executives were not in favor of making this service affordable, which shows communication for the masses is initially low priority for businesses.  Also, in-depth history focuses on minute business details that may be irrelevant in understanding how society is affected.      - May

By describing the history of the telegraph and telephone through the scope of buisness strategy, Friendlander and Fishcer both demonstrate the exteme importance of competition and societal demand plays in the evolution or demise of such technologies. Amy Friedlander points out the role that six party competition had on the telegraph in terms of developing buisness strategy. With such competition, it was not enough for buisnesses to create the most efficient technologies, but had to appeal to specific demographics and other major companies ot be successful. The converse relationship that developed between the telegraph and the railroad signifies this relationship; those companies that did not align themselves with the railroad companies fell apart. Since many buisnessmen used the telegraph over the telegram, Fischer demonstrates how telephone companies had to appeal to a wider base of consumers to be successful. Though telephone use was primarily by doctors and parmacies at first, competitive low prices and the ability to call from coast to coast affordably were driving factors towards the telephone appealing to a greater proportion of Americans. Though looking at the telegraph and telephone through a buisness perspective sheds light on the difficulties companies like AT&T faced to stay successful, the accounts do not take into consideration other information and communication outlets, such as the postal service. With the surge in telegraph and telephone use, did less people begin sending letters? If so, what reparcussions did this have on the postal service? These wholistic ideas are not covered in both these specific narrative accounts. - Steven White

Since the focus is primarily based on business strategies, the explanations of the history of new information technologies by Friedlander and Fischer inevitably both have advantages and disadvantages. One advantage to this approach is that it is easier to pinpoint what drove new information technologies; by reducing this evolution to business practices, one could conclude that as businesses grew and competitors fought for their share of the market, new technologies were developed that distinguished who gained control(monopoly). From this conclusion, this is a more systematic way of studying the history of technology. However, this advantage is also the disadvantage-- social factors were not of great interest. This is emphasized in the first chapter of “America Calling”: “Economists tend to focus on immediate and straightforward applications of technical advances. Neither group, and few scholars generally, have looked closely at how the use of major technologies affects personal and social life”. Both authors geared towards how technology shaped social factors in a way that suited businesses (telephones) rather than analyze how social factors shaped technology. Not weighing equal emphasis on social factors is a disadvantage due to the complexity of the rise of technology. For example, the automobile started out having more of an intention to fix the problem of efficient transportation rather than vie for profit as seen today. - Greg Wilson

Analyzing the history of information from a business-oriented viewpoint has the advantage of demonstrating how financial restrictions, legal restrictions, and historical events shape the development of new information technologies. For example, we see how though the telegraph was patented in 1837, it is not for another 6 years that it is implemented in testing. We can also see how the Railroad industry drove the development of the telegraph, and more generally how business relations determine particularly which new technologies flourish. Viewing the history of information from this angle however, obscures some details about the device's role in culture. For example, when we read Friedlander's article on the telegraph, we learn about when the telegraph developed and where, but we learn little about what the development of the telegraph meant for the common man. We understand that it improved capital by N% for certain businesses, but there is little to be learned about the culture of the telegraph. We don't see what exactly the telegraph did to personal relationships, for example, and upon reading an article centered on the business of telegraph companies, we might think that it had nothing to do with the personal sphere or culture at all. -Christopher W.

Technological and scienfic advances will always be connected to the policies that affect them. Scientists, now-a-days, grudgling accept that politics play a very important role in everything from legality of issues to funding of scientific experiments. People in the research fields are excited about Obama becoming the president because they expect him to allocate more money towards research. Similar to the way Dick Cheney was able to help Halliburton by being the vice president, Anson Stager was able to help Western Union by being the Union Army's superindendent of military operations during the civil war. Studying the strategies used by Field in order to lay a transatlantic cable line will teach us on how to convince governments and private individuals to fund a risky investment. Studying history through business strategy tells us the rise and fall of a particular technology. Studying histories of information technologies in terms of business strategy gives us a good idea of how such politics work, how people make deals with each other and in simple terms, it gives us an understanding of the business of the technology. However, studying history through business strategy gives an impersonal view of the people that lived during the times. Friedlander mentions that between 1845 and 1850, telegraph revenues were dominated by business. That does not tell us how the common man's life was impacted by the new invention. It also does not give enough credit to the inventors. Friedlander mentions Morse in one paragraph out of ten pages of her chapter. While seeing history through the eyes of business can give us an understanding of the financial and the political background of the technology, it leaves us in the dark about the evolution of technology and its influence on the life style of the people. -Praneeth

The shift is from technological determinism to social perception and utility. It is useful because we see how people interpret a technology and how subsequent shifts in that interpretation allow for different modes of usage. For example both the telegraph and the telephone were initially perceived as novelties with little practical use. Says Fischer, the inventor of the telephone had "the formidable task of inventing uses for the telephone and impressing them on others." Similarly it wasn't until the transmission of the democratic nomination of Polk that the telegraph's relevance to democracy was widely acknowledged. However, uncritically looking at business strategies as a gauge of a technologies import, is irrationally assuming that the business advocates understood the consequences of their product, where they're relevant market was, how consumers would perceive the technology, and that they acted rationally in response. During the late 19th Century "the consensus was that any increased business would not make up for the profits lost by reducing rates." However, we cannot from this infer that early telephone technology was not desirable enough to the residential sector to allow Bell to expand service, though it seems a plausible explanation. Fischer rightly points out that these groups misunderstood how the technology would be embraced: "as a network, telephones became more attractive." -Roy