Open Standards and the Digital Age

Andrew L. Russell is an Assistant Professor of History and the Director of the Program in Science and Technology Studies in the College of Arts and Letters at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey. Before arriving at Stevens, he was a Postdoctoral Fellow in Duke University's John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. Russell earned his PhD from The Johns Hopkins University (2007), MA from the University of Colorado, Boulder (2003), and BA from Vassar College, New York (1996). He has published in journals such as IEEE Annals of Computing, Enterprise and Society, and Information and Culture, and has been awarded fellowships from the Charles Babbage Institute, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American Society for Information Science and Technology.

• 1. Introduction; 2. Ideological origins of open standards I: telegraph and engineering standards, 1860s–1900s; 3. Ideological origins of open standards II: American standards, 1910s–30s; 4. Standardization and the monopoly Bell System, 1880s–1930s; 5. Critiques of centralized control, 1930s–70s; 6. International standards for the convergence of computers and communications, 1960s–70s; 7. Open systems and the limits of democratic design, 1970s–80s; 8. The Internet and the advantages of autocratic design, 1970s–90s; 9. Conclusions: open standards and an open world.

'This book contributes significantly to our understanding of the current state of affairs in information technology and governance, while also making original contributions to our understanding of the evolution of business institutions across the long twentieth century. Drawing on substantial original research, Andrew L. Russell argues that processes for setting industry standards have embodied broadly felt (and often competing) values regarding American governance. … In the process, we come to see how the current enthusiasm for open systems and standards fits in a larger story of American governance. The current situation is neither a radical break nor an idealized state, as much contemporary literature insists and celebrates. Rather, it is a refinement in the face of shifting economic conditions that reflects and draws on a persistent commitment to economic liberalism. This is an important point that will garner considerable attention from historians and contemporary business analysts.' Steven W. Usselman, Chair of the School of History, Technology and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology