[4.9]. Not to be confused with the former speech writer for Ronald Reagan.
[4.10]. I’m not beating up on the late professor, one of the best teachers I ever had. In his place, I’d have given the same advice. The limitations of 1960s technology made it difficult to think otherwise.
[4.11]. E-mail from Bruce Siceloff.
[4.12]. Katherine Fulton, “Heirs to newspaper make unlikely pioneers. So why is Frank Daniels III out on the frontier?”, Poynter Special Report: Converging Technologies, 1994, pages 5-7.
[4.13]. Ibid.
[4.14]. Daniels, in T Leaves.
[4.15]. The speculation about Time’s role in the cable trade is my own. Jim Kinsella, one of the organizers of Pathfinder, told me that he liked this approach but was not necessarily speaking for the company.
[4.16]. In Raleigh, a locally oriented arm of Time Warner might enjoy a big advantage over the N & O someday if the newspaper lacked access to cable for Internet purposes. Cable will probably be much better than phone connections, the kind the N & O uses. The best cure, of course, would be laws that (1) assured the N & O a place on local cable and (2) also let the phone companies there go into the cable business. Then the N & O could choose between Time Warner and its phone company allies of the present. Perhaps such laws will be on the books by the time you’re reading this. Meanwhile, I’ll hardly blame the people at Time Warner for unofficially talking up cable for the Internet; as noted before, I’d do the same, given the technical benefits.
[4.17]. Conspiracy theorists may take note that another arm of the Newhouse interests, Ballantine Books, is distributing NetWorld! for Prima Publishing.
[4.18]. Laurie Flynn, “Getting on-line—the Microsoft way,” New York Times, November 20, 1994, page F10.