Data communications over telegraph circuits 1920

You say "Nope", and then describe exactly the same thing that I did. Understanding computers, and not understanding the *business*.

So you agree with me. Fine.

At least here you explicitly say that yes that is correct. So why say "Nope" to start with?

However, your last sentence is only half correct. They did not know how to provide computing to customers, and that is the business end, which we agree they did not understand. As far as AT&T having computing interest in comm other than as a "connection vehicle", they *clearly* did. They've used computing in *many* ways other than controlling telephone switching.

The major fault with AT&T's post divesbreasture organization was that it originally evolved as a way to efficiently provide administration to a huge monopoly. It was so effective that government oversight couldn't keep up with it! (Which is explicitly why the Bell System was broken up.) But it did not provide effective *business* administration to the market driven company that it had become by court order.

Certainly, by the 1980's, even before the breakup, the Bell System was effectively using computers for business administration purposes. For example, the entire purpose of the computer research that Dennis et al were doing, and the first usage it was put to (text processing for the patent office), which had directly very little to do with "comm" or a "connection vehicle".

I don't believe that what either you or the OP, as quoted above, said is something which applies uniquely or specifically to AT&T. Certainly what you say is generally true, but in what way does that apply to AT&T, or to either my comment (or the OP's comment quoted above)?

In fact, when it comes to the differences between a general purpose computer used in business administration (payroll etc) then yes the OP's point is very accurate as compared to a computer used for telephone switching. Your experience may well have been virtually limited to general purpose computers, but AT&T's needs were not.

And AT&T, as I was pointing out, was not the only place where their view of reliability was different than what you experienced.

...

:-) Probably true! I had never heard about that before, but it does sound just *sooo* typical.

What always annoyed me to no end about such periodic studies that got put into the back drawer was the way the next evaluation would use the previous study. Rather than review it and make note of the logic used, re-verify the facts for changes or additions, and then re-analyze the situation, one of two things would happen.

Often enough the previous study would be totally ignored, and some of the facts or important potentials would be undiscovered in the new study. No continuity...

But the opposite fault would be excessive continuity... some lazy SOB would essentially copy parts of the last report without critical verification or analysis!

Both of those faults were *rampant* in both the telecom industry and with the government agencies (FAA, DOD, etc) that are big customers for the industry. Typically it would lead to failure to build needed facilities, or building the wrong facilities in the wrong place.

And then the ultimate insult to injury mechanism: refusing to correct the problem because they have to protect their "investment"!

--