Data communications over telegraph circuits 1924

Horse pucky lady. It *should* be beneath your dignity to make statements that you can't demonstrate to be true. Gratuitous insults won't make your point for you.

I'm talking about a different *universe* than you are.

Judge Green issued the Modified Final Judgment in 1982 ordering divesbreasture in 1984.

Up until that time the Bell System was without question the best telecom system in the world. But it was a *regulated monopoly*.

The problem was that the world had changed already, and was *obviously* about to change even more dramatically. The specific reason for ordering divesbreasture was that government simply could not regulate a monopoly such as the Bell System effectively. Which is just as equally to say that the Bell System's administration was so tuned to running a monopoly that they were quite able to out fox the regulators, and everyone knew it.

It certainly wasn't AT&T that was not effective!

Or, not until divesbreasture. AT&T was never able to effectively administer a market driven company, for the specific reasons previously discussed.

On the other hand, if you wish to argue only that the Bell System was not effective at using computers for either telecommunications or for administrative purposes, lets review...

They introduced computer controlled electronic switching systems in the 1960's (that is buttuming that we define a crossbar switch as a non-computer, even though it is).

They opted *out* of the Multics project and after that were increasingly providing their own hardware, OS, and application software for operation of the business. Generally speaking at any given time, especially before divesbreasture but certainly afterwards too, AT&T was way ahead of almost everyone in the telecommunications industry, with the single exception of one company that managed to keep up with them, and that was Northern Telecom Inc.

Now, before you get overly excited again, I am *not* talking about services to customers, but speaking strictly of internal use by the company for the company.

Perhaps one reason AT&T kept that lead was because they avoided VMS and DEC hardware after some point in the 1970's, eh? ;-)

(Okay, that was worded as a cheap shot. But the fact they *could* do that does clearly indicate that they did understand computers, whether it was a 3B20, a 3B2 or a 4E toll switch, of which DEC would only have understood the 3B2...)

Actually, the idea that anyone who designed, manufactured, and supported the 4E and 5A (or NTI's DMS-100 and DMS-200) switching systems doesn't understand computers is hilarious!

On the other hand, AT&T did use a variety of non-AT&T hardware at various times. IBM, GE, and DEC for example.

Are you really suggesting that past text processing, AT&T didn't use computers? Or for that matter, do you think UNIX is AT&T's "default OS" today, or ever was? (Look at the headers on any Usenet article you find posted from virtually anyone with an att.com address, and see if it looks like UNIX to you!)

However, they used UNIX for a great number of things, at various times. Maintenance tracking systems, inventory systems, and circuit equipment databases, are all examples. And of course the software that controlled the switching systems for the ESS switches of the 70's and the OS on the digital switches beginning in the 80's were based on UNIX.

Currently the *business* computers are using Windows NT, and have for several years. Most of the IT infrastructure is Windows NT (servers etc).

What year did *you* have in mind? 1920?

You do know what Bell Labs was-is? And what WECO and Lucent were-are? They certainly were able to, and did, provide better computer services when needed than were available from any other source.

So it may sound good, but probably *isn't* true!

Truth doesn't seem to be high on your list of requirements... ;-)

You mean traffic studies for the PSTN were not the real business of the company? Nor are siting of switching centers, microwave maintenance centers, fiber optic cables or studies of manning requirements?

What are you mumbling about? And just *how* would that be an indication that it is not related to the "real business" of the company?

Sigh. See above.

What the Hell are *you* talking about? When a company invests a few million dollars into equipment, they *don't* like to turn around and replace it before it has even started to pay for itself. That has *nothing* to do with politics or graft.

But it does have to do with studies that are incorrect due to poor continuity, as described above.

None of which you seem to be able to understand?

That's because you are mumbling and not addressing the discussion. Stay focused, and maybe what you say will make better sense, eh?

--