From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 20:04:09 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i3A049X02213; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:04:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404100004.i3A049X02213@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #175 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:03:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Part 2 of 2 Ala carte Cable TV (Neal McLain) Subject: Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask (J Beaman) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (jmeissen@aracnet.com) Commentary: Heads up VoIP - Regulation Incoming (VOIP News) Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today (Lisa Hancock) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:17:39 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Part 2 of 2 Ala Carte Cable TV ======================================== ACCESS CONTROL (DBS ONLY) ======================================== All DBS signals are broadcast from a geostationary satellite [7]. Satellites intended for DBS service are spaced 9 degrees (or more) apart within the geostationary orbit to accommodate small-aperture (18-inch diameter) receiving antennas. The DBS band consists of 32 transponders arranged in a 500-MHz block transmitted in the following frequency bands: Uplink 17.3-17.8 GHz Downlink 12.2-12.7 GHz The downlink footprint for most services covers the entire continental United States; supplementary spot beams are used for Alaska and Hawaii. In some cases, spot beams may be employed for "local-into-local" service (delivery of local broadcast television stations to subscribers in specific DMAs), allowing the same downlink frequencies to be reused simultaneously in different geographic areas. At any given geographic location, all relevant signals are delivered to the subscriber's receiving antenna. Each transponder utilized for DBS service relays a digitized data stream containing one or more video signals with accompanying multi-channel audio and metadata. The video signals are digitally compressed so that several video streams (virtual channels) can be multiplexed into each data stream. The encoding schemes used by DirecTV and EchoStar are mutually incompatible: EchoStar uses MPEG-standard 188-byte data packets, while DirecTV uses 132-byte data packets; audio and metadata protocols are also different. Each DBS subscriber must own a receiver of a specific design intended for use with a specific DBS service. The signal received from the satellite includes metadata used by the receiver to display channel numbers, program guides, and similar information, and to identify authorized signals. Each receiver is fitted with a card slot to accept an access card issued by the DBS company. Each authorized receiver's serial number is matched to a specific access card; the receiver will operate only when the proper access card is in place. DBS receivers are available on the open market; used receivers are often available on eBay. DBS resellers often provide free receivers for new customers who agree to one-year contracts. Subscriber ownership of receivers obviously saves DBS companies a lot of up-front capital; furthermore, subscribers are less likely to abuse receivers that they own. For DBS companies, digital receivers offer many of the same advantages that digital STBs offer cable companies: - Video signals can be digitally compressed, so that several video streams (virtual channels) can be crammed into each transponder. - Scrambling is 100% effective. Unauthorized signals are simply not decoded; the receiver generates a black-burst video signal to replace each unauthorized satellite signal. - Access control is implemented in software; consequently, tier upgrades and downgrades in can be accomplished remotely without a site visit. Many tiers or combinations of tiers can be accommodated. DirecTV and EchoStar each offers local-into-local service, as well as extensive selections of foreign-language tiers for domestic audiences (EchoStar's Arabic-language tiers even include Aljazeera). DBS receivers do, in fact, make individual-video-signal a-la-carte offerings technically feasible for every level of service, including basic (indeed, the very concept of "basic" service would be rendered obsolete by full a-la-carte pricing). But DBS operators have chosen not to offer their services on this basis, presumably for some fairly obvious reasons: - Within the United States, federal regulations permitting local- into-local carriage of television broadcast stations stipulate that if a DBS company carries one station in a DMA, it must carry all stations in the DMA, and it must place them on "contiguous channels." This block of contiguous channels is, in effect, a tier. - DBS companies' carriage agreements with most non-broadcast program suppliers require carriage in the basic tier. - Like CATV companies, DBS companies bury their infrastructure costs in their basic-service prices. Offering full a-la-carte pricing would require a new pricing structure that would include some sort of flat connection charge to cover infrastructure costs. - DBS companies apparently like to package their products in ways that, for marketing purposes, can be easily compared with (or contrasted against) competitive CATV packages. Descriptions of program tiers offered by major DBS companies are at: DirecTV . Dish Network . Sky Angel . VOOM . A list of all communications satellites currently in orbit over ITU Region 2 (North and South America) is available at . Clicking on a satellite name brings up a list of transponder assignments. ======================================== ACCESS-CONTROL COSTS (CATV and DBS) ======================================== If we compare the technologies used by CATV companies vis-a-vis DBS companies, there are many obvious differences. But there is also a striking similarity: all channels are delivered to the subscriber premises, and access control is located at, or near, the premises. Read that again: ALL CHANNELS ARE DELIVERED TO THE SUBSCRIBER PREMISES, AND ACCESS CONTROL IS LOCATED AT, OR NEAR, THE PREMISES. Ok, so what? So this: The whole a-la-carte pricing issue seems to be based on the assumption that there's a linear relationship between the price of the basic tier and the number of channels carried in the basic tier. This assumption is simply not true: the price of the basic tier includes the amount needed by the MVPD to cover its infrastructure costs. These costs are essentially fixed, independent of the number of channels that any given customer receives: - A CATV company must deliver every channel every tap throughout the entire outside plant whether or not any potential customer subscribes to any of them. - A DBS company must deliver every channel to every square inch of the United States whether or not anybody subscribes to any of them. This is, of course, why every CATV company and every DBS company requires every subscriber to "buy through" the basic tier before purchasing any upper tier. The tiers themselves are priced to recover the incremental costs that they incur: higher license fees; reduced local-ad-insertion revenue; higher administrative costs for record-keeping and billing; added labor and vehicle costs for site visits. A recent example of this erroneous assumption: Tom Betz [TD 23:145; 23:147], wrote: > Who do I have to bribe to stop getting (and paying for) ALL the > useless sports channels that I just program the TV to skip? > It could easily cut my cable bill in half. Betz didn't identify those "useless sports channels," but let's assume they're ESPN and some of its offspring, in which case the license fees would be somewhere around $3.00 or $4.00 per month. Suppose that Betz's favorite CATV company actually did remove these channels from the basic tier and move ("migrate" in FCC-talk) them to an upper tier (call it the USC tier). This change would reduce the CATV company's basic-tier license fee, but it would not reduce its infrastructure costs by one penny. Assuming that the company passed the license-fee savings along to its basic-tier customers, Betz's cable bill would drop, at most, by that $3.00 or $4.00 license fee reduction. Betz's neighbors who happen to like those sports channels would now have to subscribe to the USC tier *and* the basic tier. What would that cost? I can't speak for any particular program supplier, but I can cite a few obvious reasons why the USC tier would cost a lot more than the $3.00 or $4.00 that Betz would be saving. The program supplier would incur an immediate reduction in license-fee revenue, and an immediate reduction in the number of potential viewers supporting its advertising base. In response, it would almost certainly increase the license fee (assuming that it didn't just sue the CATV company for breach-of-contract for making the change in the first place). One could, of course, argue that the program supplier could partially offset these losses by charging higher advertising rates. To an extent, that's a legitimate argument. The old advertising-industry adage that "paid advertising is worth more than free advertising" certainly applies here: any viewer who pays for access to the USC tier is more likely to watch the USC tier. But it's unlikely that increasing the advertising rates would generate enough revenue to offset the losses resulting from the smaller number of viewers. Advertising prices are economically elastic; at some point, advertisers are simply going to balk at paying higher prices for fewer viewers. From the CATV company's point of view: - The license fees for the USC channels would be increased substantially. - Operating costs would rise because of the administrative costs associated with the new tier. Installing security devices to block unauthorized viewing would be a big expense, especially if n-traps were required. General office overhead would spike for a few months until subscribers got used to the change. - The local-ad-insertion revenue base for the USC channels would be lower. The CATV company might be able to offset some of this loss by raising its advertising rates (that old ad-industry adage applies here as well), but it's doubtful that it could recover all of the lost revenue. In other words, by migrating these channels, the CATV company would incur higher license fees, higher operating costs, and lower advertising revenue. To recover these costs, it would have to bury them in the subscription fee for the USC-tier. Consequently, the retail price for this tier would be a far more than $3.00 or $4.00 per month -- perhaps as much as $10.00 or $15.00. How would local sports fans react to this change? Which faction would file more complaints with the LFA: sports fans or everybody else? Which side would the local newspaper's editorial page favor? Which faction would make the most noise at the inevitable public hearing before the City Council? ======================================== RETAIL A-LA-CARTE PRICING (CATV and DBS) ======================================== Now let's go back to the original question and rephrase it in the context of the previous discussion: if cable television and DBS companies can offer services in tiers, why can't they just put each channel on a separate tier and offer everything on an a-la-carte basis? The short answer is: they can. But there are a few problems that we need to consider first: NON-BROADCAST PROGRAMMING CONTRACT CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS. Problem: As long as broadcast networks have the Congressionally- sanctioned right to bundle non-broadcast programming with retransmission-consent for co-owned O&O broadcast stations (and force them onto the basic tiers), no MVPD will be able to offer any of those non-broadcast services on an a-la-carte basis. Possible solution: Congress will have to change this law as a prerequisite to any sort of rational discussion about a-la-carte pricing. Of course, NAB will mount a fierce opposition, but if Congress really wants a-la-carte pricing, I don't think it has much choice. INFRASTRUCTURE COST RECOVERY. Problem: The basic tier currently includes, among other things, infrastructure-cost recovery and non-broadcast programming. If non-broadcast programming is removed from basic and offered a-la-carte, some alternate means of infrastructure cost recovery will be necessary. Possible solution: Impose a flat monthly access fee of, say $20 or $30, on every subscriber. This would undoubtedly be perceived by the public as a new scheme for jacking up the price, but if every CATV and every DBS instituted it simultaneously (with an appropriate barrage of press releases), I think it could be done. A CATV could include local broadcast stations (and possibly PEG access channels) as part of the cost-recovery fee, and continue calling it "basic." But of course, this too would be perceived as a way to jack up the price even if the price actually went down. CATV ACCESS CONTROL. Problem: It's financially impossible for any CATV to implement a-la-carte pricing right now for any analog channels, simply because of the cost of sending out a technician (remember that $50 per trip) for every change in every subscriber's favorite-channel list. (At least DBS doesn't have this particular problem.) Possible solution: Wait a while. This problem is going to be insurmountable for the next several years, but it will eventually go away by itself. By 2010 or 2015, when the transition to digital television is complete (or at least past that magic 85% threshold), the cable industry will finally be able to move all basic-tier services to digital, drop all analog channels, and vaporize all those n-traps, p-traps, and analog boxes in a Great Ceremonial Bonfire. Once every CATV subscriber possesses a 100%-secure, subscriber-owned, addressable digital box (or the equivalent circuitry built into consumer electronics equipment), access-control costs will drop dramatically. SUBSCRIBER CHURN. Problem: Subscribers would want to churn in and out of some channels they don't watch on a regular basis. Program providers obviously would require each MVPD to establish procedures to prevent this behavior. To cite an example close to home: if I were paying my DirecTV bill on an a-la-carte basis, I would want to subscribe to USA Network for two days a year for the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, then drop off for the rest of the year. Possible solutions: - Institute fixed-term contracts, like cell phone companies use. When you first sign up for service, you select the channels you want, and agree to a one-year contract. Add a channel later, and you pay an upgrade fee. Try to drop a channel later and you find that you're locked in for the duration of the contract. Or else you have to pay a downgrade fee (hey, didn't you read the fine print?). - Turn the problem into an opportunity. Marketing departments would jump on this just like they do now with tiers: short-term deals for specific channels for specific time periods. Special packages for every holiday ... all sorts of gift-card packages ... "season tickets" for sports events ... pay-per-view time blocks (hey, this works for Playboy TV: $7.99 gets you a four-hour block). Maybe USA would even sell me the dog-show. LICENSE FEES. Problem: A-la-carte pricing will dramatically reduce each non-broadcast programmer's potential audience. How programmers react to this situation is a matter of speculation, but it seems safe to say that license fees will rise substantially. A hypothetical example: a certain programmer expects a 25% a-la-carte penetration rate. If it expects to maintain its license-fee revenue, it must increase the license fee by a factor of four. A service presently licensed for $0.50 per month would rise to $2.00; good old ESPN, presently at $2.61, would shoot up to $10.44. If the programmer expects to maintain its advertising revenue, it must either raise the license fee even further, raise its advertising rates, or both. Possible solutions: Live with it. This is the price to be paid for a-la-carte pricing. Now let's try a little experiment. Let's try to figure out what a hypothetical subscriber's bill might look like with a-al-carte pricing. We start with some assumptions: - We can ignore the broadcast/non-broadcast bundle problem. - We can ignore the CATV industry's analog access-control problem. - The hypothetical subscriber has six favorite non-broadcast channels (not including ESPN), each of which has a pre-a-la-carte license fee of $0.50. Each programmer expects a 25% a-la-carte penetration rate, so the license fee jumps to $2.00. - The monthly infrastructure fee is $20.00 (this is a wild guess on my part, but we have to start somewhere). For CATV subscribers, this fee also includes local broadcast stations and PEG access channels. - The CATV franchise fee is 5% of gross revenues, which equates to 5.26% of net. - State and local taxes total 8%, and apply to CATV and DBS. This hypothetical bill would look like this: CATV DIRECTV ECHOSTAR Access charge ......................... $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Six non-broadcast services, @ $2.00 ... 12.00 12.00 12.00 All local broadcast stations .......... 0.00 3.00 5.99 All PEG access channels ............... 0.00 N/A N/A Franchise fee ......................... 1.68 N/A N/A State and local taxes ................. 2.69 2.80 3.04 TOTAL ................................. $36.38 37.80 41.03 That's for just six non-broadcast services and all local stations, but without ESPN, without any premium services (HBO, Showtime, etc.), and without considering churn. Add a few more non-broadcast channels, or add ESPN, and where are you? Here's a homework assignment for , Tom Betz, Paul Robinson, and anybody else that's interested: using the above assumptions, calculate your own hypothetical a-la-carte CATV or DBS bill for your particular set of favorite channels, and let us know now it compares with your current bill. Feel free to change any of the assumptions, but let us know what you changed. And don't forget: - Be careful to distinguish between broadcast and non-broadcast channels. Foreign-language, home-shopping, and religious channels can be either. And sometimes both: TBN, for example, is both in several markets, where a local broadcast station carries the same satellite feed that the CATV does. - Non-broadcast services that are free to the MVPD don't count: home shopping, NASA-TV, religious, and World Link TV come to mind (but C-SPAN and its brethren *aren't* free, so count them if they're on your favorites list). - PEG access channels don't count; you get these free with CATV and they're not available with DBS. - If you get your service from a CATV company, add the franchise fee to the total, before taxes. For most CATVs, the official published franchise fee is 5% of gross; that works out to about 5.26% of net. - If you get DirecTV from an NRTC affiliate (e.g., Pegasus), include the $1.75 royalty fee. - Include state and local taxes on top of everything else. If any readers out there have more accurate information about actual license fees, please let us know, so we can all refine our calculations. ======================================== EDITORIAL ======================================== "Every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." -- Adam Smith. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776). ESPN is what it is today *because* it's a basic service that *every* basic subscriber contributes to. And because ESPN is what it is, it attracts more people to subscribe to basic CATV/DBS service. These new subscribers contribute more money to ESPN, so ESPN can do a better job serving its audience. These new subscribers also contribute more money to other programming services so that they can do a better job of serving their audiences. Read that paragraph again, but replace the word "ESPN" with the name of your favorite basic channel. In the aggregate, each program service receives more revenue as more subscribers are added, allowing it to do a better job of serving its particular audience. And by so doing, it increases the value of the basic service for all subscribers. This is Adam Smith's invisible hand at work. Do we really want a-al-carte pricing? ======================================== FOOTNOTES ======================================== [1] The cable television must-carry provisions were enacted by Congress as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The FCC published implementation rules in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 CFR 76.56. Several parties brought suit to overturn the must-carry provisions of the Act; the Supreme Court ultimately upheld them in TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. Public release of former Justice Harry Blackmun's papers provides a look at how the court reached this decision (thanks to Monty Solomon for bringing the Blackmun article to my attention [TD 23:138]). Further information: - Full text of Cable Act of 1992 . - FCC 47 CFR 76.56 . - Full text of TURNER decision . - Article about TURNER decision . - Article about Justice Blackmun . [2] Exceptions exist for large DMAs (e.g. Paducah KY-Cape Girardeau MO-Mount Vernon IL) where an in-DMA transmitter might be so far away that the signal can't be received off-the-air at the CATV headend. In such cases, the station may enforce must-carry if, and only if, it makes technical arrangements to deliver a usable signal to the headend. [3] The DBS must-carry provisions were enacted by Congress as part of the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act of 1999. The FCC published implementation rules in the Code of Federal Regulations at 47 CFR 76.66. The Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association, joined by DirecTV and EchoStar, brought suit to overturn the must-carry provisions of the Act; these rules were upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in SATELLITE BROAD. v FCC. The Supreme Court refused to review the case, thereby letting the Fourth Circuit's decision stand. Further information: - Full text of SHVIA Act of 1999 . - FCC fact sheet about SHVIA . - FCC 47 CFR 76.66 . - Full text of SATELLITE BROAD . [4] According to the FAA, the premium for launch insurance approaches 15% of the cost of the launch vehicle itself. Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. Fourth Quarter 2002 Quarterly Launch Report. "Commercial Space and Launch Insurance: Current Market and Future Outlook." , page 14 (PDF page 7). [5] Every state has at least one "one-call" notification center. . [6] CATV companies are responsible for the signal quality and leakage integrity of inside wiring. . [7] A description of the geostationary satellite orbit is at . ------------- Obligatory disclosure: I'm a retired cable guy (Comcast, Niall, TCI, and Warner) now living in Texas where I subscribe to DirecTV because my local cable company (Cebridge Connections) doesn't carry C-SPAN2, PBSYOU, or NewsWorld International. Like , I have no use for sports channels, shopping channels, channels that aren't in English, soap opera channels, or Fox News. But I still pay for them. Neal McLain nmclain@annsgarden.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:33:59 -0500 From: John Beaman Subject: Subject: Re: Livewire: When You've Got to Google Better, Ask Actually, this is not entirely Google's fault. The adult site you = mentioned is listed because they have a list of BBQ restaurants in the = Portland area. I assume it's so you can take your "escort" out to a nice = place to eat. John Bartley stated: > This article only scratches the surface. > The new Local Search at Google > http://local.google.com > When I enter BBQ and my zip code, it does find the best BBQ restaurant > in town: > Buster's Texas Style Barbecue > (503) 652-1076 > 17833 SE McLoughlin Blvd > Milwaukee, OR 97267 > 1.0 mi S - Directions > It also lists, right next to that family restaurant: > PORTLAND ESCORTS, ADULT GUIDE, ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ... > Adult Help Wanted Wants YOU....! Post your Resume ... > lovelyescorts.com - and more related pages. > Lemme tell ya, Busters was underthrilled with their new virtual > Nneighbor when I gave them a heads up. And, there is no reason for > the adjacent listing, as that other 'enterprise' does not have a > phyisical presence anywhere near Milwaukee ... it's in the next > county up. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. ------------------------------ From: jmeissen@aracnet.com Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: 9 Apr 2004 16:23:11 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if the 'Peter Reilly' referred > to above is/was the technical book publisher by the same name with > various technical works on the net and in bookstores. PAT] You're thinking of O'Reilly and Associates. http://www.oreilly.com/ John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:20:19 -0400 Subject: Commentary: Heads up VoIP -- Regulation Incoming Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Everyone has their opinions -- this is perhaps one of the more pessimistic views, but the last four paragraphs (not shown below) are worth reading. http://news.com.com/2030-7352_3-5188097.html Commentary: Heads up VoIP--regulation incoming By Forrester Research Special to CNET News.com By Lisa Pierce, Vice President Although the Federal Communication Commission has indicated that it favors applying a light hand on regulation of voice over Internet Protocol, it's clear that VoIP will not completely escape either regulation or taxation. The FCC's stance, taken in its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on IP Services, could be especially problematic for VoIP providers with business cases that are heavily dependent upon avoiding specific functions the FCC requires of telecommunications service providers -- and thus escaping telecommunications-related fees and taxes. For instance, there is no federal requirement for VoIP services to interconnect with operator, directory assistance, 911 or E911 services. VoIP services are not required to support local number portability or to pay into the Federal Universal Services Fund. All this could change. Customers who use services that have not incurred these types of costs should anticipate that they will, and they should also expect prices to rise as a result. Such well-known VoIP upstart providers as Vonage and Net2Phone could find themselves forced to raise their prices as regulatory fees are assessed. Consequently, given a shrinking cost gap between incumbents who offer VoIP services and new providers, some VoIP services or carriers will cease to exist. Providers that don't have the cash flow from a broad portfolio of services are at the greatest risk. Expect the FCC's future VoIP ruling to be issued after Nov. 2--this is an election year -- and to be purposefully vague, which will create market uncertainty. That will dampen the pace of provider VoIP service deployment and adoption, especially by business customers. Full commentary at: http://news.com.com/2030-7352_3-5188097.html How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home: http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/ ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: IBM System/360 40 Years Old Today Date: 9 Apr 2004 16:07:35 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov (Randolph J. Herber) wrote Thank you for the comprehensive comments. > But, these machines [1401] were slow: > each character processed, even the characters in the > instructions, required 11 microseconds of CPU time. According to the Campbell-Kelly-Aspray (sp?) book, the biggest feature of the 1401 was not the CPU but rather the fast and clean 1403 printer. I would guess that the 1401 CPU was hardware bound-- meaning the slow printer and reader determined throughput, but the fast 1403 was a big improvement over what else was out there at the time. The big machines used the 1401 as a spooler. I know many programmers who have a warm feeling of the 1401. > What made it such a success was this was the first > architecture from IBM that was available with a very wide > price and performance range were the vendor promised that if > one wrote their programs to a certain not particularly > difficult standard then the program would execute correctly > across the entire range and where the architecture was > reasonably good for I/O, numerical computation, data movement > and character processing. It was one of the very first such > architectures in the world. I can't help but wonder if today's telephone systems, made from many different manufacturers, share that upward compatibility. That is, if a company wanted to upgrade from a small PBX to a bigger one, would it's staff have to relearn everything? > IBM received several surprises with these machines. Operating > System proved to be much harder than they expected to write > (at one time IBM had over 2000 programmers working on its > development). Their programming leader, Fred Brooks, said "the bearing of a child will take 9 months no matter how many women are assigned", and, "adding people to a late project will just make it later". > No, specifically, except for such models as the 22 and the 44, > all machines _could_ have all instructions. Some models had > optional floating point instructions, for example. But, those > models could have them! True. I forgot in those days the instruction set was divided into three parts (IIRC), a basic, commercial, and floating point or combined as a universal instruction set. My employer, with an old S/360-40, allowed another firm to use our machine since their -40 didn't support floating point and ours happened to (not that we ever used it). > (Remember the Intel 80387 floating point > unit and how it was emulated in some personal computers?) Today, we forget that electronics was so expensive back then. As you said, on the first generations of x86 PCs floating point was simulated or purchased as an optional CPU add-on chip. >> 5) A sophisticated operating system: While earlier machines had some >> control programs, S/360 had sophisticated support services. Simple >> machines had none. > Program memory isolation, dynamic program loading and large > memory models come to mind. Hopefully the "WinTel" PC world will eventually catch on to that. Thanks again for your post. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #175 ******************************