|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 241 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
new search engine and GSM interference info
Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. 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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:49:09 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <6645152a0908302149qf73baeas14951f0122b7b47a@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, ed<bernies@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
> A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
> govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
> the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. Â Others say AT&T
> really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
> LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
> data services arena.
I worked at AT&T from 1987-1990 while in college. Virtually everyone
I worked with was strongly anti-divestiture some even claiming the
decree would soon be rescinded and Ma Bell would rise again. I never
voiced my opinion for a whole host of reasons, but I thought they were
all delusional. I saw the phone monopoly as some relic you would've
found in the Soviet Union.
I just read a piece that was anti-Ted Kennedy. But the attack came
from the left claiming Kennedy was the champion of deregulating the
trucking, airline, and telephone business. It went on to detail how
workers in those industries have it far worse today than they did in
the 1970's. I think that charge is debatable. On the consumer side I
simply can not imagine cell phones, broadband Internet, VOIP, or even
the added features on land-line service existing as we know them today
if we still had a regulated telephone monopoly. In 1984 who'd have
guessed that 20 years later I'd get my dial tone from my cable TV
company and 5 years after that I'd have no land-line because I carried
in my pocket a phone about the size of a dozen playing cards stacked
together.
I know that having a monopoly aided getting phone service to every
remote corner of the country. The world benefited from the
innovations out of Bell Labs. I know divestiture was painful. But in
the long run I believe we did the right thing.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:19:25 -0400
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <ectn95p2kdmbmmd2m3486239ffupb2qm6q@4ax.com>
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:57:49 -0400 (EDT), John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, ed<bernies@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>> A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
>> govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
>> the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. Others say AT&T
>> really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
>> LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
>> data services arena.
>
>I worked at AT&T from 1987-1990 while in college. Virtually everyone
>I worked with was strongly anti-divestiture some even claiming the
>decree would soon be rescinded and Ma Bell would rise again. I never
>voiced my opinion for a whole host of reasons, but I thought they were
>all delusional. I saw the phone monopoly as some relic you would've
>found in the Soviet Union.
>
>I just read a piece that was anti-Ted Kennedy. But the attack came
>from the left claiming Kennedy was the champion of deregulating the
>trucking, airline, and telephone business. It went on to detail how
>workers in those industries have it far worse today than they did in
>the 1970's. I think that charge is debatable. On the consumer side I
>simply can not imagine cell phones, broadband Internet, VOIP, or even
>the added features on land-line service existing as we know them today
>if we still had a regulated telephone monopoly. In 1984 who'd have
>guessed that 20 years later I'd get my dial tone from my cable TV
>company and 5 years after that I'd have no land-line because I carried
>in my pocket a phone about the size of a dozen playing cards stacked
>together.
>
>I know that having a monopoly aided getting phone service to every
>remote corner of the country. The world benefited from the
>innovations out of Bell Labs. I know divestiture was painful. But in
>the long run I believe we did the right thing.
>
>John
Certainly the divestiture was good for the stockholders... However,
there is one terrible loss that is not frequently mentioned. Bell
Labs had what was known as area 11, a large group of highly educated
and intelligent people doing what was called "basic research". It was
out of this that things like the transister were developed along with
a whole host of other things that at the time were considered "not
particularly useful" but later proved crucial to the advancement of
technology. It also did a lot of material studies and basic work that
might not become commercially viable for years or decades.
After divestiture this all dissappeared and Bell Labs essentially
became a development organization. The basic fundamental science
investigations virtually ceased and now are left to government and
academia as there is no competitive commercial enterprise willing to
invest the big bucks (at one time Bell Labs was 40% research and 60%
development) in research that might not be commercial for years.
Truly a great loss that industry today has not replaced. The impact
on the future is uncertain, but likely not to be positive.
ET
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:56:08 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <4A9C2AD8.80508@thadlabs.com>
On 8/31/2009 9:22 AM, Eric Tappert wrote:
> [...]
> Certainly the divestiture was good for the stockholders... However,
> there is one terrible loss that is not frequently mentioned. Bell
> Labs had what was known as area 11, a large group of highly educated
> and intelligent people doing what was called "basic research". It was
> out of this that things like the transister were developed along with
> a whole host of other things that at the time were considered "not
> particularly useful" but later proved crucial to the advancement of
> technology. It also did a lot of material studies and basic work that
> might not become commercially viable for years or decades.
>
> After divestiture this all dissappeared and Bell Labs essentially
> became a development organization. The basic fundamental science
> investigations virtually ceased and now are left to government and
> academia as there is no competitive commercial enterprise willing to
> invest the big bucks (at one time Bell Labs was 40% research and 60%
> development) in research that might not be commercial for years.
> Truly a great loss that industry today has not replaced. The impact
> on the future is uncertain, but likely not to be positive.
I see the loss of basic research as it was previously funded by large
organizations and government as a national (USA) disaster. Where is
today's Xerox-PARC? DARPA's funding seems to be channeled towards only
short-term results nowadays. IBM still does some amazing things:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17699-microscopes-zoom-in-on-molecules-at-last.html
but I don't see the long-term breakthroughs of yore.
Even HP Labs has been "altered" to a results-now operation compared to
some of the "Wow!" things I've seen done there over the years as this
article sort-of laments:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/30/BUCF19ES5E.DTL
Seems to be a symptom of the "me now" generation with its "just good
enough" philosophy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <5053ced1-c6bb-40ed-b3e7-deb9b5003ef4@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 31, 11:57 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> I saw the phone monopoly as some relic you would've
> found in the Soviet Union.
I respectfully must disagree. The Bell System provided the best
telephone service at the lowest price; it obviously was doing many
things right. It was and remains common for capital intensive
utilities, like water, sewer, power distribution, local telephone
loop, and cable TV, to be monopolies since it would be wasteful to
have duplication. There were very sound reasons to have the old Bell
System as it was in its time.
The primary motivation for breakup of the Bell System was NOT the
publicized claimed "public interest", that is, better and cheaper
service for folks like you and me. The motivation was (1) cheaper
rates for the largest subscribers, (2) ability for new businesses
(like MCI) to get into the game, and (3) an ideological dislike of
big businesses and AT&T in particular. Several books have been
written detailing all this, citations were previously posted.
It's easy for a newcomer not subject to any rules to "skim the cream"
off a tightly regulated business by focusing on low cost areas and
ignoring high cost ones, which is what MCI did. MCI did not offer
improved services, indeed, their early services were of poor
quality. In real life, competitors break in by offering superior
service, not superior lawyers.
The issue of "competition" is quite complex. Simply saying
"competition is good" is totally inadequate because often times so-
called competitors settle on a high-rate plain; they don't
automatically get into a price war and reduce prices. Real life
competition is very different than the competition in economics books.
> I just read a piece that was anti-Ted Kennedy. But the attack came
> from the left claiming Kennedy was the champion of deregulating the
> trucking, airline, and telephone business. It went on to detail how
> workers in those industries have it far worse today than they did in
> the 1970's. I think that charge is debatable.
The govt has regulated the private sector when the private sector
failed to provide good service or had other problems. Deregulation of
various industries was certainly not an automatic panacea and while
there were some benefits, there were also many nasty problems. I
would definitely agree that remaining workers in the airline and
telephone industries have it much worse today than in the past; a
great many people lost their jobs. (I don't know about trucking).
Certainly govt regulation is not perfect (it killed the railroads and
Western Union). But eliminating it altogether is not the only option;
it could be modified to be more flexible and meet modern needs, too.
> On the consumer side I simply can not imagine cell phones, broadband
> Internet, VOIP, or even the added features on land-line service
> existing as we know them today if we still had a regulated telephone
> monopoly. In 1984 who'd have guessed that 20 years later I'd get my
> dial tone from my cable TV company and 5 years after that I'd have
> no land-line because I carried in my pocket a phone about the size
> of a dozen playing cards stacked together.
Again I must disagree. Many of those technologies were originally
developed by the old regulated Bell System. The Bell System was
certainly NOT static, it was constantly developing and implementing
new features and technologies. There was a lot of stuff in the
pipeline at the time of Divesture, and it was coming out regardless of
Divesture or not.
Also, remember that there was an explosion of technology after
Divesture that affected everything. In 1984 who would've guessed that
computer power costing about $30,000 in today's dollars would be
available for $250 today? Who would've guessed that 512 MB of random
access storage would cost all of $5.00, that several gigabytes would
fit on a postage stamp? This explosion in technology allowing all
these things also allowed the revolution in telecommunications. It
was a dramatic reduction in the price of terminal equipment that
allowed cheap high speed and high volume communciations over toll
lines, which in turn allowed the Internet. Cheap but reliable
components allowed C.O. switches to be smaller and inexpensive.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:35:20 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: new search engine and GSM interference info
Message-ID: <4A9B8B48.1040603@thadlabs.com>
Over the past 5 to 6 weeks in several threads, we've discussed and
argued the interference issues attributed to GSM cell phones.
At this point it's probably safe to write we now understand the whys
and wheresfores of the multifaceted problem and I was just about to
put a closure on my files about GSM interference this weekend when 2
interesting events occurred. One is a "new" search engine referred
to me by an acquaintance, the other is a refinement on the GSM inter-
ference problem's cause (as item (1) below).
The acquaintance suggested I use http://ixquick.com/ for research-
related searches for its better results. Always wanting to learn new
things every day, I gave it a try. The interface is clean like Google
with the additional benefit IP addresses aren't tracked.
Searching for "GSM interference problems" (as I had done with not much
success or relevance with Google) claims 1.3 million results found with
those 1,3 million reduced to 48 unique results ranked by relevance.
Whoa! What a pleasant surprise. Each of the 48 results was relevant and
pertinent, nothing like the eleventy-seven bazillion useless hits
typically returned by other search engines.
Here's what I gleaned and learned from those 48 results by IXQuick:
1. the problem is specific to GSM with TDMA, not CDMA. To wit:
GSM uses TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access), so each user transmits
a short burst of information at a different time, so they don't
interfere with one another. A GSM phone sends one packet (burst) of
data every 4.615ms, or about 217 per second. Your speakers are being
interfered with at 217Hz, causing the buzzing sound.
This does not occur with CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). In
CDMA, each user gets a different code applied to his signal, so the
base station can separate the users apart that way. This allows all
users to transmit at the same time, so the radio isn't switching on
and off at 217Hz (or any other rate in the audio spectrum).
2. shielding techniques for some GSM cell phones: placing the phone
atop some of the anti-static bags used for hard drives seems to work.
3. some solutions for those having problems with their hearing aids:
http://www.gsmworld.com/health/links/hearingaidfaq_user.shtml
4, Texas Instruments forum video on GSM interference:
http://community.ti.com/media/p/4931.aspx
5. another good article with thoughtful user comments:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033_3-6199149.html
6. information about Tempest:
http://www.tech-faq.com/tempest.shtml
7. a new appreciation and understanding for the banning of cell phones
on commercial airline flights
8. interesting background information about GSM supplementing
the 1994 article in comp.dcom.telecom:
http://ccnga.uwaterloo.ca/~jscouria/GSM/gsmreport.html
http://www.privateline.com/mt_gsmhistory/10_original_article/
NONE of the above were found in any prior searches using any of the
big 5 search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, CUIL, Ask).
It's going to be a cold day in Hades before I return to any of the
conventional Internet search engines.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:13:20 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Message-ID: <4A9BB050.4070105@annsgarden.com>
From Broadcasting and Cable website:
> The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Comcast saying the
> 30% subscriber limit is "arbitrary and capricious"
> By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/28/2009
> Comcast and the cable industry have won a big victory in
> court.
> The U.S. Court of Appeals Friday threw out the FCC's cap
> on the number of cable subscribers one operator can
> serve, saying the FCC was "derelict" in not giving DBS
> its due as a legitimate competitor.
> "We agree with Comcast that the 30% subscriber limit is
> arbitrary and capricious. We therefore grant the petition
> and vacate the Rule," said the court, which concluded
> that there was ample evidence of an increasingly
> competitive communications marketplace and that cable did
> not have undue control on the programming pipeline."
> But FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested the court
> decision would not be the last word on the cap.
Rest at http://tinyurl.com/lnyt4d
Since I no longer work for, nor subscribe to, any cable TV
company, this doesn't affect me. But I suspect that
certain other TD readers will have opinions...
Neal McLain
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is probably old hat to those in the industry, but I'm confused: I
didn't know there was a limit, nor what it was supposed to
accomplish. More details, please.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Court Throws Out FCC's Cable Subscriber Cap
Message-ID: <2651fb03-5063-4d47-983d-79cdf8f1ea03@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 31, 11:16 am, Neal McLain <nmcl...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
> From Broadcasting and Cable website:
>
> > The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Comcast saying the
> > 30% subscriber limit is "arbitrary and capricious"
> > By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/28/2009
>
> > Comcast and the cable industry have won a big victory in
> > court.
>
> > The U.S. Court of Appeals Friday threw out the FCC's cap
> > on the number of cable subscribers one operator can
> > serve, saying the FCC was "derelict" in not giving DBS
> > its due as a legitimate competitor.
>
> > "We agree with Comcast that the 30% subscriber limit is
> > arbitrary and capricious. We therefore grant the petition
> > and vacate the Rule," said the court, which concluded
> > that there was ample evidence of an increasingly
> > competitive communications marketplace and that cable did
> > not have undue control on the programming pipeline."
>
> > But FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested the court
> > decision would not be the last word on the cap.
>
> Rest athttp://tinyurl.com/lnyt4d
>
> Since I no longer work for, nor subscribe to, any cable TV
> company, this doesn't affect me. But I suspect that
> certain other TD readers will have opinions...
>
> Neal McLain
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> This is probably old hat to those in the industry, but I'm confused: I
> didn't know there was a limit, nor what it was supposed to
> accomplish. More details, please.
>
> Bill Horne
=====================
Since 1992, there has been a limit: no single cable TV company can
serve more that 30% of the total number of cable TV subscribers in the
country.
As to what it was supposed to accomplish, my (cynical) answer would
be: nobody knows. Apparently Congress thought the FCC should be able
to answer that question, but the FCC has never been able come up with
an explanation that would stand up in court.
The story began with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992. Among other things, this act directed the
FCC to established market-share limits on the number of cable
subscribers a given company could control. The FCC settled on 30%.
The cable TV industry sued the FCC to overturn this limit. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit tentatively agreed with the
cable industry and remanded the case back to the FCC for further
justification of how it arrived at 30%. The FCC affirmed the 30%
limit; the industry sued again. This time the D.C. Circuit vacated
the rule altogether and told the FCC to try again.
The cable industry's argument is that competition from satellite
(DirecTV and Dish Network) render the rule unnecessary. The FCC's
dilemma is that the Cable Act of 1992 requires it to come up with some
sort of rule.
My guess is that the FCC will start all over and come up with some
other percentage. Once again, the cable industry will sue and the DC
Circuit will vacate. I suppose the FCC will just give up at some
point unless Congress clarifies its intention.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <3cccea73-3dc1-49e4-8ee2-6f7ab618f916@y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 30, 10:09 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
(A)
> >And, no doubt, if you had a beef with the bill, you could invite the
> >company owner out into the parking lot to settle it.
(B)
> Don't be silly. We'd negotiate over a beer at the bar around the
> corner.
In some places, a small utility or municpality will handle disputes by
(a) or (b) above. It's not a good practice as it usually leads to
more troubles and litigation. I know of one town where for decades
the town council tended toward debate by (a) above, and was always
mired in litigation that arose afterwards. In other towns (b) led to
charges of favorrtism.
Our town had to some faces on the town council who were headed in the
above direction but fortunately cooler heads prevailed and the
hotheads either resigned or were voted out. Unfortunately, local
politics caused a good town manager to get caught in the middle and
fired.
As to paying in person, today some large utilities no longer have
branch offices to accept payment or even designated payment agents as
they once did. At one time many years ago only wealthy people had
checking accounts; others had to pay their utility bills in person at
the company or through a local store which charged a fee. Some bought
money orders (which are still available from the post office). Today
most people have checking accounts. I'm not sure how low income
people pay their bills, maybe the check cashing places in poor
neighborhoods act as agents for a fee.
A few years ago the modern Western Union wanted to get into that kind
of financial service business using its network of money transfer
agents as a base. I don't know how far they went with it, but
apparently money transfer is a service often used by people who
limited means or immigrants.
As an aside, regarding informal cash payments, there is a privately
owned small road bridge on the upper Delaware River where the toll is
collected by a woman standing on the yellow line with a newsdealer's
apron; the bridge is nicknamed "the apron lady bridge". It's been a
while since I crossed it so I don't know if it's still done.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 2009 17:59:37 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <20090831175937.34404.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>(A)
>> >And, no doubt, if you had a beef with the bill, you could invite the
>> >company owner out into the parking lot to settle it.
>
>(B)
>> Don't be silly. We'd negotiate over a beer at the bar around the
>> corner.
>
>In some places, a small utility or municpality will handle disputes by
>(a) or (b) above. It's not a good practice as it usually leads to
>more troubles and litigation.
Having been both a long time customer of the phone company and the
mayor of the village, I have to say that my experience has been the
exact opposite. Informal processes tend to arrive at consensus,
formal ones where people make speeches at hearings tend to polarize
the sides and lead to a train wreck.
You do have to treat people fairly, but the way you do that is to
treat people fairly.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 2009 18:09:42 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <20090831180942.36827.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>As an aside, regarding informal cash payments, there is a privately
>owned small road bridge on the upper Delaware River where the toll is
>collected by a woman standing on the yellow line with a newsdealer's
>apron; the bridge is nicknamed "the apron lady bridge". It's been a
>while since I crossed it so I don't know if it's still done.
You probably mean the Dingman's Ferry bridge. When I crossed it
earlier this year, there was still a guy standing between the two
lanes collecting cash tolls by hand.
They have a nice web site at http://www.dingmansbridge.com/
ObTelecom: their phone is on the Pennsylvania side
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: NYS mandates "large print" for utility bills
Message-ID: <f9920e1f-3619-40e6-96f8-f47616f9c65d@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 31, 5:39 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> You probably mean the Dingman's Ferry bridge. When I crossed it
> earlier this year, there was still a guy standing between the two
> lanes collecting cash tolls by hand.
> They have a nice web site athttp://www.dingmansbridge.com/
Yes, that's the bridge. Thanks for the update.
FWIW, in New Jersey there was a major bridge leading to shore resorts
that was privately owned, but apparently the private company went
broke and the state ended up with the bridge, discovering it to be in
lousy shape and in need of major repairs.
> ObTelecom: their phone is on the Pennsylvania side
FWIW, I think the area up there is Independent not Bell, but I'm not
sure.
* * * *
Per our other discussion on seniors and telecom, something happened
just last night. At midnight, an elderly neighbor, 90, was discovered
collapsed in her kitchen. She had falled much earlier and broke her
hip. She had an emergency call button necklace, but wasn't wearing it
when she fell and had no way to get help. Fortunately a neighbor
finally saw her and called 911. I hope she'll be okay, though she
might not be able to return to her beloved apt; while she's mentally
sharp, physically not so good.
Those emergency call necklaces are a great idea, but of course the
person has to wear them and have the presence of mind to use it in an
emergency. Not all seniors have that capability. They ought to be
waterproof so they could be worn at all times. (She took her's off
apparently to go to the pool.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm surprised that the companies which offer these devices don't
include an accelerometer to detect falls.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <e1268bd0-d1f0-4637-ba8e-02e5fbcd4ac8@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
Excerpt from the New York Times:
Dr. James Marsters passed away. He and two deaf colleagues broke that
barrier for themselves and tens of thousands of other hearing-impaired
people in 1964 when they converted an old, bulky, clacking Teletype
machine into a device that could relay a typewritten conversation
through a telephone line. It was the first example of what became
commonly known as a TTY and is now, in a greatly updated and compact
version, called a text telephone.
When they introduced their device, the partners met strong resistance
from AT&T, which then had virtual control over the nation’s telephone
system and prohibited direct connections to its network.
For full article please see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/us/23marsters.html?scp=1&sq=deaf&st=cse
On another newsgroupo several people said AT&T didn't offer any
service the deaf community could use so Dr. Marsters developed his
system.
I'm don't think that's correct. For many years both AT&T and Western
Union offered switched teleprinter services that anyone could get (TWX
and Telex). AT&T also would rent Teletypes for use on its voice
network for people to call computer time sharing services.
Also, I believe AT&T would rent anyone a modem for connection to
privately owned equipment. Normally that would be a computer, but
there were other machines, such as process control and telemetry
reporting, that were connected as well. The modem acted as the
interface to protect the network. All machines of course were owned
by the user, AT&T did not rent out any computers. So if someone had
an old refurbished Teletype AT&T would rent them a modem. (Also,
private line subscribers could use their own modems.)
What I think Dr. Marsters' developed was a low-cost system for deaf
people to use instead of renting a Bell System modem, teleprinter, or
a Western Union Telex connection. Since AT&T's and WU's services were
intended for busineses, the prices weren't cheap.
***** Moderator's Note *****
TWX and TELEX were, as you point out, too expensive for ordinary
users, but there were other barriers to deaf/hearing-impaired users
having access to the telephone network, and the inventors had to
overcome all of them.
1. TWX and TELEX machines worked on closed networks; nobody without a
TWX or TELEX machine could communicate with them, so even those few
Deaf/Hearing-impaired users who could afford to have access
couldn't depend on being able to reach another
Deaf/Hearing-impaired user.
2. The only dial-up data services available for connections via the
PSTN was Tymnet (Telenet wasn't established until 1974): it was
geared to business users, and it didn't have any capability for
placing calls to destinations on the PSTN or to manually-controlled
nodes.
3. The modems available for use on ordinary POTS lines were
"Full-duplex" designs, which wouldn't operate unless they were
constantly connected with the same type of modem. That meant that
they wouldn't work with common telephone devices such as answering
machines, and that they couldn't be used in situations where only
one person on the call was Deaf or Hearing-impaired, which is a
very common occurence, especially with "Late deafened" adults who
have lost their hearing but are still able to speak intelligibly.
Marsters, Weitbrecht, and Saks solved these problems with a
combination of innovation and elbow-grease:
1. They chose to use the older Model 15/19 and Model 28 Teletype
machines which ham operators were also using. These machines were
nearing the end of their commercial life, and were relatively
inexspensive.
2. They designed and built a half-duplex modem which is compatible
with telephone answering machines: it could be used to record an
outgoing message which would be printed on a caller's machine, and
also to leave a message for later printing by the recipient.
3. They included automatic Transmit/Receive switching, which allowed
for calls to be made where one party was using a TDD and the other
was speaking, as in the case of late-deafened adults.
In a sense, the TDD was a "bridge" device, which made it possible for
Deaf/Hearing-impaired users to make use of the PSTN during the time
that the Internet was developing. Since it's now routine for most
major companies to have a web presence, and for them to offer customer
service and bill payments online, there's less of a need for a device
which will operate on the PSTN, but this is a (surprisingly sharp)
double-edged sword.
1. Many Deaf/Hearing-impaired users depend on the TDD as their only
means of access to government services such as the registry of
motor vehicles or their local tax assessor, but at the same time
that these organizations have adapted to the Internet, they have
tended to step back from TDD services and upkeep.
2. Dependence on Email and web-sites for communications between
Deaf/Hearing-impaired users has reduced demand for TDD devices and
training, which has pushed prices up and re-introduced the problem
of not knowing what system a given user has available.
3. The TDD gave Deaf/Hearing-impaired citizens a small compensation
for the marginalizatoin they endured in many aspects of their
lives. Since TDD devices were not designed to communicate with
computers, government agencies and utilities (which were mandated
to offerr TDD lines) did, as a result, sometimes give a higher
standard of customer service to TDD users than to the hearing
public. TDD users could usually get through to a government agency
much more quickly than those using voice, and they were also spared
the dubious benefits of voice-response systems.
Dr. Marsters and his team changed the world for deaf and
hearin-impaired telephone users. I'm sad to see him go.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:26:50 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <L9ednQA6zKWnwQHXnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Dr. James Marsters passed away. He and two deaf colleagues broke that
> barrier for themselves and tens of thousands of other hearing-impaired
> people in 1964 when they converted an old, bulky, clacking Teletype
> machine into a device that could relay a typewritten conversation
> through a telephone line. It was the first example of what became
> commonly known as a TTY and is now, in a greatly updated and compact
> version, called a text telephone.
>
> When they introduced their device, the partners met strong resistance
> from AT&T, which then had virtual control over the nation's telephone
> system and prohibited direct connections to its network.
>
> On another newsgroupo several people said AT&T didn't offer any
> service the deaf community could use so Dr. Marsters developed his
> system.
>
> I'm don't think that's correct.
Yes, a "service" existed. It was *NOT* 'practical' for the deaf community to
use it. The reason? The usual one, money.
> For many years both AT&T and Western Union offered switched
> teleprinter services that anyone could get (TWX and Telex). AT&T
> also would rent Teletypes for use on its voice network for people to
> call computer time sharing services.
*snicker* Got any idea how much that _cost_, relative to a standard
'voice grade' phone line? And, of course the Teletypes/modems that AT&T
provided for time-share service dial-up, did "originate" mode _only_.
you could not directly connect two such machines over the 'voice' network'.
That meant a deaf person could_not call another deaf person directly with
such a device. The two people had to 'co-ordinate' their calls, so that they
both called 'some other place', that had 'answer' modems, and could shuffle
the bits back and forth between them.
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> TWX and TELEX were, as you point out, too expensive for ordinary
> users, but there were other barriers to deaf/hearing-impaired users
> having access to the telephone network, and the inventors had to
> overcome all of them.
>
> 1. TWX and TELEX machines worked on closed networks; nobody without a
> TWX or TELEX machine could communicate with them, so even those few
> Deaf/Hearing-impaired users who could afford to have access
> couldn't depend on being able to reach another
> Deaf/Hearing-impaired user.
>
> 2. The only dial-up data services available for connections via the
> PSTN was Tymnet (Telenet wasn't established until 1974): it was
> geared to business users, and it didn't have any capability for
> placing calls to destinations on the PSTN or to manually-controlled
> nodes.
*NOT* entirely true. Lots of places had limited dial-in- capability direct
to their mainframes. Tymenet was unique in that it was a 'national'
front end to anybody who got an X.25 'server' connection from them. "anyone"
could dial the 'nearby' Tymenet number, and then decide which host system
to connect to. Beat the h*ll out of having to make a long-distance call to
the city where the particular 'host' was located. It also got you whatever
bandwidth you could get on that 'nearby' call -- generally =far= better than
one could get going through the voice LD network.
What Tymenet, etc., did was really the 'precursor' of the communications
"revolution". The only element in the 'variable cost' of a customer "'net"
connection was the amount of data they transmitted/received. *DISTANCE* was
not a cost item. The server across the country (or in another country) didn't
cost more to access than the one next door -- as far as the 'communication' cost
went, that is. What the server operator charged, how much data you passed,
and how_fast you passed it, did all factor into your total bill.
***** Moderator's Note *****
You're right; I should have said "it didn't have the capability for
placing calls to manually-controlled destinations on the PSTN".
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <fa63e2c3-f01d-42a6-8c3a-d838a6cefefd@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> TWX and TELEX were, as you point out, too expensive for ordinary
> users, but there were other barriers to deaf/hearing-impaired users
> having access to the telephone network, and the inventors had to
> overcome all of them.
Thanks for your comments. There are several things I don't
understand.
> 1. TWX and TELEX machines worked on closed networks; nobody without a
> TWX or TELEX machine could communicate with them, so even those few
> Deaf/Hearing-impaired users who could afford to have access
> couldn't depend on being able to reach another
> Deaf/Hearing-impaired user.
Yes, TWX and Telex operated on closed networks and they were
expensive. But if they weren't expensive, why couldn't the deaf
community simply become an active part of that network? In addition
to being able to communicate with each other, they could also
communicate to the many businesses that were on-line. A deaf user
still had to have a teleprinter and modem no matter what carried the
call.
> 2. The only dial-up data services available for connections via the
> PSTN was Tymnet (Telenet wasn't established until 1974): it was
> geared to business users, and it didn't have any capability for
> placing calls to destinations on the PSTN or to manually-controlled
> nodes.
I'm confused about this. By 1968 and probably earlier (1965?)
computer time sharing services were available through dial up
terminals on the PSTN. Anyone who had a terminal (usually a Teletype
33 or 35 rented from Bell, admittedly not cheap) could also call any
another person with a teletype at regular PSTN rates, which for a
residential local call was often free and untimed. So here, too,
aside from price, the deaf community get service. (Back in school
sometimes we called other schools and conversed via the Teletypes,
Early from of teen texting.)
> 3. The modems available for use on ordinary POTS lines were
> "Full-duplex" designs, which wouldn't operate unless they were
> constantly connected with the same type of modem. That meant that
> they wouldn't work with common telephone devices such as answering
> machines, and that they couldn't be used in situations where only
> one person on the call was Deaf or Hearing-impaired, which is a
> very common occurence, especially with "Late deafened" adults who
> have lost their hearing but are still able to speak intelligibly.
There was mention that the TDD service used "simplex" instead of half
or full duplex. But again I don't understand. Presumably all modems
out there were full or half duplex, and on the PSTN, 110 baud
(Teletype 33/35 speed). I don't think there were many answering
machines back in the 1960s.
> Marsters, Weitbrecht, and Saks solved these problems with a
> combination of innovation and elbow-grease:
>
> 1. They chose to use the older Model 15/19 and Model 28 Teletype
> machines which ham operators were also using. These machines were
> nearing the end of their commercial life, and were relatively
> inexspensive.
Undoubtedly far cheaper than renting a Bell machine. But were there
problems with maintenance? The mechanical guts of a teleprinter were
complex and needed periodic maintenance. (On a teletype, when a key
was depressed it lines up various notched levers which determine the
bit pattern to be sent. On receipt, electro-magnets line up the
levels per the bit pattern and the proper key level drops down. All
this had to work precisely otherwise the bit pattern would be out of
sync with the proper lever, each bit being only 1/50 of a second
long).
> 2. They designed and built a half-duplex modem which is compatible
> with telephone answering machines: it could be used to record an
> outgoing message which would be printed on a caller's machine, and
> also to leave a message for later printing by the recipient.
So you're saying the modem "handshaking" didn't require something on
the other end; the originating modem would transmit without a return
carrier? And answering machines could record and play back modem
tones?
The Teletype 33 ASR (automatic send receive) could automatically
answer and allow the other party to leave a printed message. Earlier
models might have had that capability. Indeed, on Telex and TWX that
was the common practice. But they were costly.
> 3. They included automatic Transmit/Receive switching, which allowed
> for calls to be made where one party was using a TDD and the other
> was speaking, as in the case of late-deafened adults.
I don't understand. Did the party who could hear be able to decipher
TDD tones?
One of my co-workers was very active in the deaf community and
demonstrated his TDD device to me, and he was very familiar with all
of this. It used an acoustic coupler so it could be used from any
telephone and was very compact, displaying messages on an LED strip.
Unfortunately, he passed away suddenly, less than a month before his
retirement.
Thanks again for the explantion.
[snip]
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'll answer your questions in a separate post.
Bill Horne
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 01:38:27 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Dr. James Marsters, TTY deaf service developer
Message-ID: <20090901053827.GF24448@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:42:27PM -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> >
>> TWX and TELEX were, as you point out, too expensive for ordinary
>> users, but there were other barriers to deaf/hearing-impaired users
>> having access to the telephone network, and the inventors had to
>> overcome all of them.
>
> Thanks for your comments. There are several things I don't
> understand.
>
>
>> 1. TWX and TELEX machines worked on closed networks; nobody without a
>> TWX or TELEX machine could communicate with them, so even those few
>> Deaf/Hearing-impaired users who could afford to have access
>> couldn't depend on being able to reach another
>> Deaf/Hearing-impaired user.
>
> Yes, TWX and Telex operated on closed networks and they were
> expensive. But if they weren't expensive, why couldn't the deaf
> community simply become an active part of that network? In addition
> to being able to communicate with each other, they could also
> communicate to the many businesses that were on-line. A deaf user
> still had to have a teleprinter and modem no matter what carried the
> call.
We don't get to say "If they weren't expensive": anything that comes
after that supposition is just speculation. My mother used to say "If
wishes were horses, beggars would ride".
>> 2. The only dial-up data services available for connections via the
>> PSTN was Tymnet (Telenet wasn't established until 1974): it was
>> geared to business users, and it didn't have any capability for
>> placing calls to destinations on the PSTN or to manually-controlled
>> nodes.
>
> I'm confused about this. By 1968 and probably earlier (1965?)
> computer time sharing services were available through dial up
> terminals on the PSTN. Anyone who had a terminal (usually a Teletype
> 33 or 35 rented from Bell, admittedly not cheap) could also call any
> another person with a teletype at regular PSTN rates, which for a
> residential local call was often free and untimed. So here, too,
> aside from price, the deaf community get service. (Back in school
> sometimes we called other schools and conversed via the Teletypes,
> Early from of teen texting.)
Well, aside from price, I'd be visiting the Mare Imbrium on my next
vacation.
Computer time-sharing services might have been available (I'll defer
to other readers on the timeline for that: I worked as a Teletype
repairman for an educational time sharing system in 1976, although
Ward Christensen didn't start CBBS until 1978), but even if they were,
their price limited them to business users, and they weren't available
for free to anyone but students, and only during school hours.
You seem to be saying that these were viable alternatives for every
deaf and hearing-impaired person who had a large trust fund sufficient
to deploy Model 33's at every location they might want to communicate
with. That's not a reflection of the deaf & hearing/speech-impaired
community.
>> 3. The modems available for use on ordinary POTS lines were
>> "Full-duplex" designs, which wouldn't operate unless they were
>> constantly connected with the same type of modem. That meant that
>> they wouldn't work with common telephone devices such as answering
>> machines, and that they couldn't be used in situations where only
>> one person on the call was Deaf or Hearing-impaired, which is a
>> very common occurence, especially with "Late deafened" adults who
>> have lost their hearing but are still able to speak intelligibly.
>
> There was mention that the TDD service used "simplex" instead of half
> or full duplex. But again I don't understand. Presumably all modems
> out there were full or half duplex, and on the PSTN, 110 baud
> (Teletype 33/35 speed). I don't think there were many answering
> machines back in the 1960s.
Television and radio use simplex transmission: it's a one-way-only
system where the listeners and viewers can only receive, and the radio
and tv stations can only send. The only simplex telephone modems I
know of were one-way devices used for telemetry.
TDD's use half-duplex transmission: either end can send, but not at
the same time. It's the same paradigm as a CB radio, i.e., "Push
to talk" - only one guy gets to talk at a time.
The PSTN doesn't care what speed asynchronous modems run at (within
the limits of the channel bandwidth, of course), since the speed is
determined by the devices which are attached to the modems. TWX
machines ran at 110 Baud, but that speed was determined by the Model
33 or 35 Teletype machines in use for the system. I used to own an
Anderson-Jacobson 831 terminal, and it connected to the PSTN with an
accoustic coupler and worked at 134.5 Baud.
Presumably, all modems in common use were full or half-duplex devices,
but the only half-duplex models I'm aware of (The Bell 202 series)
were made for synchronous transmission of data between controllers on
IBM or compatible SNA networks, and they weren't available to the
general public.
There may not have been many answering machines available back in the
60's, but they were available, and Dr. Marsters (who was, don't
forget, a dentist who needed to keep in touch with his office) knew
that deaf and hearing/speech-impaired people had to be able to use
them with a TDD: after all, if you're being called by a deaf or
hearing/speech-impaired person, how is someone going to take a
message?
>> Marsters, Weitbrecht, and Saks solved these problems with a
>> combination of innovation and elbow-grease:
>>
>> 1. They chose to use the older Model 15/19 and Model 28 Teletype
>> machines which ham operators were also using. These machines were
>> nearing the end of their commercial life, and were relatively
>> inexspensive.
>
> Undoubtedly far cheaper than renting a Bell machine. But were there
> problems with maintenance? The mechanical guts of a teleprinter were
> complex and needed periodic maintenance.
Actually, they were a lot more reliable than the new models that
replaced them: the Model 32 Teletype was only rated for 1500 shaft
hours before major overhaul. OTOH, the Model 15 RO was the standard
terminal for news reports in both the AP and UPI networks well into
the 70's.
The mechanisms were complex, but maintenance needs were minimal: TDD
use, even in high-traffic settings like Gallaudet University, wasn't
anywhere near the 24/7 duty cycle that the Models 15/19 and 28 were
designed for, and routine lubrication could be handled by end users.
> ... (On a teletype, when a key was depressed it lines up various
> notched levers which determine the bit pattern to be sent. On
> receipt, electro-magnets line up the levels per the bit pattern and
> the proper key level drops down. All this had to work precisely
> otherwise the bit pattern would be out of sync with the proper
> lever, each bit being only 1/50 of a second long).
Do tell ;-).
For 60 speed machines, it's 1/45th of a second, i.e., 22 ms per bit,
but I digress.
>> 2. They designed and built a half-duplex modem which is compatible
>> with telephone answering machines: it could be used to record an
>> outgoing message which would be printed on a caller's machine, and
>> also to leave a message for later printing by the recipient.
>
> So you're saying the modem "handshaking" didn't require something on
> the other end; the originating modem would transmit without a return
> carrier? And answering machines could record and play back modem
> tones?
Exactly.
> The Teletype 33 ASR (automatic send receive) could automatically
> answer and allow the other party to leave a printed message. Earlier
> models might have had that capability. Indeed, on Telex and TWX that
> was the common practice. But they were costly.
As I said, costly meant "not viable". End of story.
>> 3. They included automatic Transmit/Receive switching, which allowed
>> for calls to be made where one party was using a TDD and the other
>> was speaking, as in the case of late-deafened adults.
>
> I don't understand. Did the party who could hear be able to decipher
> TDD tones?
Um, no, the party who could hear would listen to the phone while the
deaf/hearing-impaired person on the other end was talking.
> One of my co-workers was very active in the deaf community and
> demonstrated his TDD device to me, and he was very familiar with all
> of this. It used an acoustic coupler so it could be used from any
> telephone and was very compact, displaying messages on an LED strip.
> Unfortunately, he passed away suddenly, less than a month before his
> retirement.
I sometimes use the same sort of machine, but the accoustic cups are
designed for the round earpiece and microphone found on "500" sets, so
they don't work as well with trimline or similarly shaped phones. I
prefer a direct connect model.
Sorry to hear about your friend. Look at the bright side: he gets to
listen to the angels sing now.
> Thanks again for the explantion.
You're welcome.
--
Bill Horne
Speaking for myself
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:46:45 -0700
From: Richard <rng@richbonnie.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <ls5o95p3i0umju9bva8elfsh3t1r6r2jt1@4ax.com>
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:01:03 -0400 (EDT), ed <bernies@netaxs.com>
wrote:
>This editorial in Business Week about the need for more R&D facilities
>like Bell Labs to revive the U.S. economy might interest Telecom list
>members.
>
>A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
>govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
>the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. Others say AT&T
>really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
>LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
>data services arena.
>
>Opinions, anyone?
>
>-Ed
>
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036681619.htm
I worked for Bell Labs from 1959 to 1990. When divestiture came in
1984, there was a lot of talk from our managers that because we were
no longer a regulated utility we could become more entrepreneurial:
try out new ideas for products or services, it's OK if some of these
ideas don't work out. Well, some people found out the hard way that
it really was not OK if ideas didn't work out; their ideas didn't
work out, and they were fired or demoted.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?
Message-ID: <6cccbe77-92e2-4cf1-acb2-521fe860ffc0@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 30, 11:01 pm, ed <bern...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> A young friend (born years after the divestiture) who works for the
> govt systems division of Alcatel-Lucent in NJ says it was the fault of
> the U.S. gov't for breaking up the Bell System. Others say AT&T
> really *wanted* to be broken up and divested of its expensive-to-maintain
> LEC's, and allowed a free hand to compete in the more profitable
> data services arena.
>
> Opinions, anyone?
As to "wanting" to be broken up, I don't agree. AT&T's first choice
was to continue mostly as is (with some changes per below). Given a
breakup was unavoidable, they sought the best deal possible under the
new order of things.
First, we must remember that several long standing Bell System
policies were going to change regardless of Divesture. A Bell System
textbook of 1975 reported that the historical rate average structure--
where rates were based on the average of costs spread over a large
customer base--would be eliminated in favor of more cost-oriented
rates. It stated this was the result of MCI's successful entry into a
low-cost corridor and the Carterphone decision allowing customer-owned
equipment. New tarrifs were being filed to reflect those changes.
(I find it ironic but sad that the Bell System's effort to meet
competition by lowering its rates was found to be objectionable by the
critics. In IBM's case, the court fully supported lowering prices as
the whole idea of competition.)
Secondly, AT&T negotiated the terms of Divesture so that it kept those
pieces it perceived to have the best value for the future, and, it
gained the ability to enter new desirable markets previously blocked
to it.
Third, other policies were going to change regardless. Renting
extension sets meant providing 24/7 maintenance for them and wiring
and that was becoming rather expensive and not worth the rental income
and public complaints. New technology allowed long distance rates to
drop, and new services and equipment to be offered.
Unfortunately for AT&T, it predicted wrong, The operating companies
had higher value. Long distance and network management, AT&T's big
strengths, ceased to be of value as a result of very cheap
technology. Western Electric, something AT&T always had strong
feelings for, also ceased to be of major value. AT&T attempted to get
into computers with the purchase of NCR but didn't do well with it.
Note that the govt tried to break up IBM. IBM went to trial and
prevailed. However, IBM had anticipated the govt action and made
several major changes which undoubtedly saved it (cutting a deal with
CDC, abandoning its historic bundling policy.)
Per Mr. Tappert and the invention of the transistor: IIRC, the
transistor was an outgrowth of applied research to find a superior
alternative to the vacuum tube, and several laboratories were working
on it. Semi-conductors were already known at that point, though
obviously a new field of study.
Per Mr. Burstein and cell phones, AT&T pioneered the ground station
automatic switching and handoff needed for cell phones in the 1968
Metroliner telephone system. AT&T was ready with a cellular test
system in the 1970s but the FCC simply sat on it for several years
trying to figure out what to do. (Great job of "public interest",
letting no one use a new technology!)
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 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.
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 The Telecom digest (17 messages)
******************************
|
or 