🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
<a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>
>> full article at:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>
>Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>(Nokia). They're all finished. :-(

Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.

In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm...@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke  <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
>when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
>Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.

Killed, nope.  It was suicide.

The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.

Bill

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC), pechter@t61.(none) (William
Pechter) wrote:

>In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm...@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke  <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
>>when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
>>Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>
>Killed, nope.  It was suicide.
>
>The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.

AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.

On 2/2/2018 6:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
> <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>
>>> full article at:
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>>
>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
> 
> Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
> when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
> 

Most of Bell Labs was sold to SAIC. Lucent ended up with a small part of 
it (and maybe the name).

From: http://techblog.comsoc.org/category/uncategorized/page/64/

______________

A History Lesson

As part of the divestiture of the Bell System in 1983, many AT&T Bells 
Labs engineers were transfered to a new company that was to be the 
research labs for the seven spun-off RBOCs.  Named Bell Communications 
Research- or Bellcore for short- the organization was formed January 
1,1984.  Over the next several years, Bellcore was very effective in 
helping their parent companies evaluate, standardize and arcitect new 
telecommunications technologies, e.g. ISDN, SMDS,  Frame Relay, Software 
Defined Network, Intelligent Network, etc.  Bellcore’s standards for TL1 
– the language of telco network management, and SONET (Synchronous 
Optical Network Transport) were implemented by every equipment company 
in those market segments.

But as the RBOCs put less of an emphasis on research and developement 
there was less need for Bellcore.  So the company was sold to Science 
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 1995.  What SAIC was 
getting, according to Bellcore’s CEO at the time, was a $650 
million-a-year software business and a $350 million-a-year professional 
services business. The approval process for the deal was arduous, 
passing muster with seven owners and nine state regulatory agencies, so 
that the sale was not completed until November 1997.

...
______________

I believe that SAIC also got the right to use all of Bell Lab's patents.


The other reason I know is that I bought a few hundred cheap shares in 
Lucent because they said they owned Bell Labs. That was when Lucent 
still seemed to a viable company.

After I bought the stock I became suspicious of Lucent's claim and 
contacted Lucent's banker who admitted that most of Bell Labs had been 
sold to SAIC.

Later, Lucent merged with Alcatel which was also a failing company. The 
combination of the two failing companies resulted in a larger (for 
awhile) failing company.

With the merger with Nokia it became a larger (for awhile) failing company.

In 2013 Nokia sold its mobile devices division to Microsoft:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/03/01/nokias-comeback-explained-historic-phone-company-suddenly-making-android-phones/

Its a real mess now.

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC), pechter@t61.(none) (William
> Pechter) wrote:
>
>>In article <kq7a7d1sjsqnltmkm...@4ax.com>,
>>J. Clarke  <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
>>>when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
>>>Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>>
>>Killed, nope.  It was suicide.
>>
>>The action was done over time by AT&T's own management.
>
> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.

Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
At the time, I thought not.
Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.

Ridiculous.

-- 
Dan Espen

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:39:54 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

> >Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
> >foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
> >(Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
> 
> Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
> when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.

Divestiture hurt the U.S.  Proponents of Divestiture claimed it
generated improvements and cost-savings, but those things came
about from technology invented at Bell Labs (ironically enough)
and other technical improvements.  The marketplace was changing
and even without Divestiture, Bell would've changed along with
it--for instance, customers would've been allowed to own and be
responsible for their own equipment and wiring.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:

> > AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
> > lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.

> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
> At the time, I thought not.
> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.

IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
for keeping Western Electric.  

I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
in court.

* Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.


> Ridiculous.

Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.

Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.

Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
competition in communications).

For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.

In article <p54tdd$1rb6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, jmreno  <no...@znet.com> wrote:
>On 2/2/2018 6:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:47:33 -0500, Andreas Kohlbach
>> <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition
>>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>>
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>>>
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>> 
>> Bell Labs was killed in 1984.  It took a long time to die but that's
>> when the knife went in.  I like to believe that there is a special
>> Hell for all the lawyers involved in that action.
>> 
>
>Most of Bell Labs was sold to SAIC. Lucent ended up with a small part of 
>it (and maybe the name).
>
>From: http://techblog.comsoc.org/category/uncategorized/page/64/
>
>______________
>
>A History Lesson
>
>As part of the divestiture of the Bell System in 1983, many AT&T Bells 
>Labs engineers were transfered to a new company that was to be the 
>research labs for the seven spun-off RBOCs.  Named Bell Communications 
>Research- or Bellcore for short- the organization was formed January 
>1,1984.  Over the next several years, Bellcore was very effective in 
>helping their parent companies evaluate, standardize and arcitect new 
>telecommunications technologies, e.g. ISDN, SMDS,  Frame Relay, Software 
>Defined Network, Intelligent Network, etc.  Bellcore’s standards for TL1 
>– the language of telco network management, and SONET (Synchronous 
>Optical Network Transport) were implemented by every equipment company 
>in those market segments.
>
>But as the RBOCs put less of an emphasis on research and developement 
>there was less need for Bellcore.  So the company was sold to Science 
>Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 1995.  What SAIC was 
>getting, according to Bellcore’s CEO at the time, was a $650 
>million-a-year software business and a $350 million-a-year professional 
>services business. The approval process for the deal was arduous, 
>passing muster with seven owners and nine state regulatory agencies, so 
>that the sale was not completed until November 1997.
>
>...
>______________
>
>I believe that SAIC also got the right to use all of Bell Lab's patents.
>
>
>The other reason I know is that I bought a few hundred cheap shares in 
>Lucent because they said they owned Bell Labs. That was when Lucent 
>still seemed to a viable company.
>
>After I bought the stock I became suspicious of Lucent's claim and 
>contacted Lucent's banker who admitted that most of Bell Labs had been 
>sold to SAIC.

Nope... SAIC got the Bellcore operations.  That was a jointly funded
research piece of Bell Labs that was involved in phone company operations
and specific research in that area.  It was the Baby Bell piece of Bell 
Labs.

The WECO and generic research piece and semiconductor piece went to Lucent.

Been at Holmdel -- worked for Lucent in the late 90's through 2000.

Bill

On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> > AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
>> > lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
>IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
>their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
>for keeping Western Electric.  
>
>I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
>feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
>newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
>in court.
>
>* Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
>he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
>Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
>decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
>experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
>It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
>Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
>it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
>
>Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
>like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
>IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
>Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
>stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
>competition in communications).
>
>For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.

Mostly didn't see where the market was going.   In hindsight the way
to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
comers.  They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
operating system.

But they didn't do that.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> > AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
>> > lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.  
>
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
> in court.
>
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
> experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.

With no reasonable sales force and lots of very able
competition, they didn't stand a chance.

I felt that way at the time.

> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).
>
> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.

IBM went though an anti-trust case at around the same time.
There was every reason to believe AT&T would have the same outcome.

-- 
Dan Espen

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:25:34 -0700, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:07:51 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday, Xerox said that, after 115 years as an independent 
>>>> business, it would combine operations with Fujifilm Holdings of 
>>>> Japan. The deal signaled the end of a company that was once an 
>>>> American corporate powerhouse. “Xerox is the poster child for 
>>>> monopoly technology businesses that cannot make the transition 
>>>> to a new generation of technology,” said David B. Yoffie, a 
>>>> professor at the Harvard Business School. The move offers a 
>>>> stark reminder that no matter how high a company may fly, it 
>>>> is still vulnerable to the next big breakthrough. Xerox joins 
>>>> once formidable tech companies like Kodak and BlackBerry that 
>>>> lost the innovation footrace.
>>>> 
>>>> full article at:
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/business/dealbook/xerox-fujifilm.html
>>> 
>>> Sad. Many great US pioneers in computer technology were recently sold to
>>> foreigners. Bell Labs became French (Alcatel-Lucent) in 2006, now Finnish
>>> (Nokia). They're all finished. :-(
>>> 
>>> Other US companies went abroad recently (say last 30 years)?
>> 
>> Honeywell -> Bull
> 
> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull.  Honeywell
> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
> still a huge American company.
> 
> 

Right, but no computers.

-- 
Pete

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> 
>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
> 
>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>> At the time, I thought not.
>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
> 
> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> for keeping Western Electric.  
> 
> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
> in court.
> 
> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
> 
> 
>> Ridiculous.
> 
> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
> experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
> 
> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
> 
> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> competition in communications).

Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-02-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
>
> Mostly didn't see where the market was going.   In hindsight the way
> to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
> in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
> Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
> comers.  They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
> processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
> operating system.
>
> But they didn't do that.

AT&T was used to operating in a monopoly environment.
They never managed to adapt to a competitive mindset.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.

IBM formed satellite business systems with comsat and aetna. There was
folklore that SBS constantly lost money ... in part because what
IBM charged SBS for the gold plated equipment ... that what it made
off selling equipment more than offset its 1/3rd of SBS losses ...
then when SBS was dissolved, IBM reimbursed comsat and aetna
for their losses.

Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
for voice as it was for SNA.

I started with HSDT project in the early 80s ... and some of the SBS
people set things up to run HSDT over high-speed satellite links.  HSDT
did rate-based pacing ... rather than window-base pacing ...  so it not
only straight-forward handled single-hop round trip between US coasts
... but also handled double-hop round trip between west coast and
europe.

past HSDT posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
some old HSDT related email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#hsdt

was also on the XTP technical advisory board
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
and wrote up rate-based pacing for XTP specification
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/xtprate.html

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.

other folklore ... guy doing M&A didn't bother to check ROLM's books
they quarter that they were acquired ... turns out it was the quarter
ROLM went into the RED.

HSDT was doing T1 and faster. IBM "officially" only had 2701 that did T1
... so I had to deal with boxes from other vendors. 2701 was no longer
produced and the existing ones were really getting old.

I was told that to continue with HSDT I had to have at least some IBM
content. The only thing I could find was that FSD was producing T1
ZIRPEL cards for the Series/1 (replacing some number of gov. 2701 T1 on
special bids). I was told (not longer after IBM acquired ROLM) only
thing I could find were the S/1 ZIRPEL ... however ROLM was all data
general, but after the IBM acquisition, ROLM put in order for a year's
manufacturing of series/1. The person that had been running ROLM
datacenter I had worked with in their prior life at IBM ... so in order
to get some S/1, I had to do some horse trading (part of continuing
HSDT).

Later, some IBM people brought in to look at issues at ROLM. One was it
was taking more than 24hrs to load new test kernels into the data
general boxes over 56kbits/sec links. I was asked to help them with
upgrading to T1 (1.5mbytes/sec) links ... to significantly reduce the
test/debug cycles (nearly 30times faster to load new test/debug kernel)
from 24+hrs to less than hour.

For some of HSDT, had equipment being built on the other side of the
Pacific. The friday before a visit, somebody in Raleigh communication
group sent out an announcement for a new internal discussion group on
high-speed communication with the following definitionw

low-speed               <9.6kbits
medium-speed            19.2kbits
high-speed              56kbits
very high-speed         1.5mbits

Monday morning on the wall of a conference room on the other
side of the pacific

low-speed               <20mbits
medium-speed            100mbits
high-speed              200-300mbits
very high-speed         >600mbits

...

the communication group had prepared a presentation for the corporate
executive committee that customers weren't interested in T1 for another
6-8 yrs. They had used customer data about 37x5 "fat pipes" ... number
of parallel 56kbit links operated as single logical link dropped to
zero at 5 or 6 links. What they didn't bother to include was that
typical telco tariff for T1 link was about the same as 5 or 6 56kbit
links ... customers just switched to non-IBM boxes supporting full
T1 when it got to that point (trivial survey found 200 customers
with T1 links supported by non-IBM boxes).

Later the communication group was somewhat forced into coming out with
box that sort of supported T1 terrestrial ... 3737 with lots of 68k
processors and boat loads of memory ... that simulated local
channel-to-channel adaptor (CTCA) ... immediately ACK'ing packet as soon
as the local box received it (because VTAM/SNA couldn't handle T1
terrestrial latency) ... and then using non-SNA between it and the
remote boxes ... even at that, max a 3737 could handle (partially
because of all the simualtion overhead) was 2mbits/sec
aggregate. full-duplex US T1 is 3mbits/sec aggregate (1.5mbits/sec in
each direction) and full-duplex EU T1 is 4mbites/sec aggregate
(2mbits/sec in each direction)

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-03, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
>>
>> Mostly didn't see where the market was going.   In hindsight the way
>> to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
>> in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
>> Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
>> comers.  They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
>> processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
>> operating system.
>>
>> But they didn't do that.
>
> AT&T was used to operating in a monopoly environment.
> They never managed to adapt to a competitive mindset.
>
They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
telephone area, including long distance.  They also were unwilling
to provide telephone services needed by customers.  Customers started
to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled.  Remember the
two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
their names).  ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
Justice to start monopoly proceedings.  The breakup had nothing
to do with the computing business.

/BAH

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Remember the
> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
> their names).

Was one of them Sprint?

John Savard

In article <e02d6925-2452-47c7...@googlegroups.com> you write:
>On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names).
>
>Was one of them Sprint?

Jeez, doesn't anyone remember anything.

The high profile bankruptcy was Worldcom which had merged with MCI and
went bankrupt in 2002, and CEO Bernie Ebbers went to jail.  The corpse
of MCI was later merged into Verizon.

One of Sprint's predecessors United Telephone went bankrupt in 1937,
but that doesn't count.  Sprint's had a lot of exciting financial
adventures, but the modern company has not gone bankrupt.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names).
>
> Was one of them Sprint?

I don't know.  MCI was one of them.

/BAH

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 5:21:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> hancock4 writes:
> 
> > On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> >
> >> > AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs.  It was destroyed by the
> >> > lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
> >
> >> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
> >> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
> >> At the time, I thought not.
> >> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
> >> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
> >
> > IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
> > their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
> > for keeping Western Electric.  
> >
> > I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
> > feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and 
> > newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed 
> > in court.
> >
> > * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
> > he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
> >
> >> Ridiculous.
> >
> > Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
> > decision by AT&T.  The company had outstanding talent and 
> > experience in electronics and software.  It had the name.
> > It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.  
> > Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
> > it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
 
  
> With no reasonable sales force and lots of very able
> competition, they didn't stand a chance.
> I felt that way at the time.

Your point about the lack of a sales force is a good one.  Though
the old Bell System had a sales force--such as encouraging customers
to get a premium telephone set or advanced equipment, basically 
the old AT&T was not used to marketing products in a competitive 
marketplace.

Indeed, in terms of selling computers, many companies did not
develop their sales forces the way IBM thoroughly trained it
sales force.


> > Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
> > like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
> > IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
> >
> > Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
> > stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
> > competition in communications).
> >
> > For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
 
  
> IBM went though an anti-trust case at around the same time.
> There was every reason to believe AT&T would have the same outcome.


There were a number of significant differences between the IBM and
AT&T break-up lawsuits of the 1970s:

. IBM had changed its ways:  IBM significantly revised its pricing
policies, eliminating bundling.  This made it a lot easier for
hardware vendors to compete, and also allowed software vendors
to come into the marketplace.  Some of the government's issues
were no longer valid.

. IBM settled a major lawsuit with Control Data.  This lawsuit was
a big part of the government's case, and when settled, the
government could no longer use the documentation (as traditional
in civil cases), hurting the government's case.

. AT&T had more enemies.  IBM served only business customers,
and generally (outside typewriters) large ones.  In contrast,
AT&T served 85% of the people and businesses* in the continental
U.S.  Everybody wanted lower telephone rates, and in those days
of social unrest, AT&T was a big target, more so than IBM.
  Further, MCI wanted very badly to get into the long distance
market freely.  Other companies wanted to sell telecommunications
equipment.  AT&T had a 90% market share*, and others wanted a
piece of that pie.  Nobody bothered to think about what they
would give up (except the military, which was worried.)


* The other 10% telecom market share was served by the 
independent telephone companies, primarily General Telephone.  


After Divestiture, many businesses found that won a 'hollow'
prize.  Sure, they saved money on long distance and equipment.
But, now they had to spend money on telecom administration--
doing things the Bell System used to do for them.  They had to
physically maintain their business telephone networks and
found it wasn't as easy as they thought.  The Bell System
let go a lot of people, and companies ended up hiring them.
In terms of cost, it was "six of one, half dozen of the other."

For companies expanding at that time (my old employer was),
there was considerable disruption in acquiring and 
operating both data lines and voice lines.  Immediately
after Divestiture, AT&T and the Baby Bells began to 
finger-point at each other, failing to resolve problems
and delaying installation.  Coordination was terrible.
That employer had to go out and purchase specialized
network diagnostic equipment for the data lines and hire
people to operate it.  It wasn't cheap.

My employer certainly did not see this as a cost savings,
especially unit managers who had a staff of people sitting
idle since their computer terminals were repeatedly down 
due to line trouble.  It took a few very frustrating years 
to clean up the mess.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.

That continues today in retail.  My drugstore now features a full
aisle dedicated to grocery items.  The supermarket has a pharmacy
and bank and even sells some clothes.  Walmart and Target have 
big food sections.

In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
used to be the province of the cable companies.  But the cable
companies now deliver phone and computer service.

In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
service and prices for the consumer, not better.  The reliability
of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
that of the traditional telephone company.  But the nice profits
has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
too to save money and make the profits, too.  (The companies are
more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
consumers with good prices or good quality.)


I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
they'll cut off my classic landline.  I'll be S.O.L.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:09 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> > Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull.  Honeywell
> > however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
> > still a huge American company.

> Right, but no computers.

I think Honeywell was quite into computerized electronics for their
control system product line.  I also suspect Allied was into computers
for control systems for its chemical plants.

Below is a link to a refinery control system from 60 years ago.
I don't know who makes that kind of control equipment today.
(To me, the stuff looks neat, but I know very little about it.)
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/trw/rw-300/Texaco_Port_Arthur_Apr59.pdf

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:

> They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
> telephone area, including long distance.  They also were unwilling
> to provide telephone services needed by customers.  Customers started
> to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled.  Remember the
> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
> their names).  ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
> Justice to start monopoly proceedings.  The breakup had nothing
> to do with the computing business.

Sorry, but not true.

Imagine you own a luncheonette.  You pay rent and taxes, and provide
your customers with restrooms and parking.

Someone sets up a pushcart selling hot dogs on the public sidewalk
in front of your place.  He pays no taxes.  Then, his customers use
your parking lot and your restrooms.  You wouldn't like that at all.

The newcomer long distance companies wanted the revenues, but 
didn't want the underlying expenses of being common carrier. 
They expected AT&T to provide things for free or below cost,
which was not fair to AT&T.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
> for voice as it was for SNA.

That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
transmission.  Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
voice and data were different enough to require different line
treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
on landlines.

I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
microwave, which has latency, too.

Some of that is touched on in the following:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission.  Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
>
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
>
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm

mid-70s as Future System was imploded, my wife was co-author of AWP39
... peer-to-peer networking architecture ... about the same time as SNA
... which specified dumb terminal communication control system ... "not"
a system, "not" a network, and "not" an archiecture (i.e. fancy TCAM)
... but because they used "network" (when it wasn't a network), AWP39
had to qualify with peer-to-peer.
htpt://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

She was then in the gburg JES group and one of the catchers that turned
ASP into JES3 and co-author of JESUS (JES unified system) ... all the
stuff in JES2 & JES3 that the respective customers couldn't live w/o
... then was con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of
"loosely-coupled" architecture (mainframe for "cluster) and did
"peer-coupled shared data architecture" ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#shareddata

She didn't remain long because 1) little uptake (except for IMS
hot-standby ... until sysplex and parallel sysplex much later) and 2)
constant battles with communication group trying to force her into using
SNA/VTAM for loosely-coupled operation.

SBS satellite communication provided much higher bandwidth with distance
insensitive charges (stationary orbit satellite footprint). SNA/VTAM had
window pacing implementation that would allow small (very limited)
number of small fixed-sized packets to be transmitted (waiting for
outstanding packet acknowledgements) and it also had maximum time-out if
it didn't get response. Double-hop 56kbit satellite link latency
exceeded both the maximum time-out case as well as the maximum window of
outstanding packets. Terrestrial T1 latency and speed would exceeded the
maxium window/number of outstanding packets ... at which point VTAM
stops transmitting until it gets ACKs back for earlier transmitted
packets (aka acknowledgements that previously transmitted packets had
been received), so even with terrestrial latency, majority of the T1
bandwidth was idle ... late 80s resulted in the 3237 spoofing CTCA
(local channel-to-channel with no latency) for T1 links ... still
couldn't get over 2mbits/sec aggregate. some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880130
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880606
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email881005
in these posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#75 We list every company in the world that has a mainframe computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#77 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)?

cira 1979 or 1980, there is inframous case where STL (west coast, now
silicon valley lab) and Hursely (Englan lab) datacenters were trying to
setup to use each others "off-shift" time for their respective 1st shift
throughput. They had double hop satellite 56kbit link (much, much
cheaper than terrestrial plus undersea cable) and initially tested with
VM370 VNET connection and everything worked fine. Then (MVS-bigot)
insisted that it be setup for MVS JES2 (SNA/VTAM) and it was completely
dead. The MVS-bigot tried to claim it was a bad link and VM370 VNET was
too dumb to realize it. The problem was the double-hop round trip
latency was greater than the MVS SNA/VTAM time-out value ... so wouldn't
establish a operational link.

HSDT even got a dedicated transponder to play with when SBS4
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/sbs-1.htm
STS-41-D (I was invited to VIP launch party at cape)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
I think SBS4 was their first KU-band ... previous having been C-band
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band

hsdt posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
HSDT did dynamic rate-based pacing (rather than window-based ... aka max
number of outstanding packets waiting for acknowledgement). I was also
on the XTP technical advisory board ... past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
and wrote up (dynammic) rate-based pacing for XTP specification
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/xtprate.html

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
>> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
>> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
> 
> That continues today in retail.  My drugstore now features a full
> aisle dedicated to grocery items.  The supermarket has a pharmacy
> and bank and even sells some clothes.  Walmart and Target have 
> big food sections.
> 
> In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
> used to be the province of the cable companies.  But the cable
> companies now deliver phone and computer service.
> 
> In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
> service and prices for the consumer, not better.  The reliability
> of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
> that of the traditional telephone company.  But the nice profits
> has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
> too to save money and make the profits, too.  (The companies are
> more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
> consumers with good prices or good quality.)
> 
> 
> I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
> they'll cut off my classic landline.  I'll be S.O.L.
> 

I don't think they can, legally. I don't know why I keep my landline -
we're away now six months a year, and we've gotten used to using our cell
phones. Despite the terrible quality, there are a lot of advantages to each
of us having our own phone, and being able to take (and make) calls when
we're out.

-- 
Pete

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> 
>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>> for voice as it was for SNA.
> 
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission.  Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
> 
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
> 
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
> 
> 

I expect that IBM was looking at bulk data transfer, where latency would
not be a significant problem. It would not have been good for interactive
use. Also, perhaps they expected Raleigh to fix the pacing problems, and
from what Lynn has said about them, I expect they wouldn't.

-- 
Pete

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>> 
>>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>>> for voice as it was for SNA.
>> 
>> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
>> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
>> transmission.  Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
>> voice and data were different enough to require different line
>> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
>> on landlines.
>> 
>> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
>> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
>> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
>> microwave, which has latency, too.
>> 
>> Some of that is touched on in the following:
>> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
>
> I expect that IBM was looking at bulk data transfer, where latency would
> not be a significant problem. It would not have been good for interactive
> use. Also, perhaps they expected Raleigh to fix the pacing problems, and
> from what Lynn has said about them, I expect they wouldn't.

I think one of the steps IBM always goes through is when they
ask themselves, "Is this process to simple?  Can our competitors
duplicate it?".

Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.

-- 
Dan Espen

On 05/02/2018 22:01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>> for voice as it was for SNA.
> 
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission.  Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
> 
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
> 
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
> 

I suspect the main problem was shortage of ram (especially when using 
magnetic core). The system probably had a two packets in transmission. A 
satellite needs buffering for 30-40 packets. With multi-hop delays can 
easily exceed one second.

Les Comeau was at MIT/CTSS and then came over to IBM science center when
it formed end of 1964. past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

He then came up with idea of virtual machines and also made observation
about Atlas paging known to be not working well.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#75 A Computer That Never Was: the IBM 7095
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2017j.html#79 thrashing,was Re: A Computer That Never Was: the IBM 7095

late 60s he left the science center and went to (IBM) gburg. Future
System had something like 13-14 sections,
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys

Les "owned" FS "interconnect" section and my wife reportedly directly to
him. She represent interconnect in FS archiecture meetings ... and has
made the observation that many of the sections had lots of academic
ideas ... but had little or no idea how to actually implement anything
("no beaf there"). Of course, I've periodically commented that I
continued to work on 360/370 that period and periodically would ridicule
FS.

Later when we were doing HA/CMP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp

Les had retired from IBM and moved back to Boston area (buying tug boat
and making over to house boat in Boston Harbor). He was director of Mass
General & Harvard Medical datacenters and also formed a software company
with some former people at the science center. We eventually
subcontracted a lot of HA/CMP implementation to his company. He recently
passed 30Nov2017
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?pid=187597624

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.

Originally, CKD disk could trade off excess channel & I/O capacity in
the mid-60s (with sequential search operations) against scarce real
memory. A decade later, the trade-off had inverted ... disk, control
unit and channel capacity was becoming the scarce resources (bottleneck)
with real storage becoming increasingly abundant. Real storage was then
being used for file caching and index ... trying to alleviate the disk
i/o bottleneck ... but CKD searches were so ingrained in OS/360 that
they continued to be part of the design. Even tho no real CKD have been
built for decades ... OS/360 descendants still require CKD simulation
(on industry standard fixed block disks). past posts mentioning CKD,
multi-track searches, FBA, etc
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:
> I suspect the main problem was shortage of ram (especially when using
> magnetic core). The system probably had a two packets in
> transmission. A satellite needs buffering for 30-40 packets. With
> multi-hop delays can easily exceed one second.

But number of packets that could be sent over terrestrial T1 link
would quickly exceed the "window" pacing limit ... before ACKs
started to be received ... so transmission would stop leaving
much of the capacity unused ... before ACKs started arriving to
reduce the number of outstanding packets.

We went to dynamic adaptive rate based pacing ... which could
aggressively use all the transmission capacity. There was a presentation
at 1988 (internet) IETF standards meeting about problems with window
based pacing because number of packets outstanding (un-acked) is
proportional to latency times bandwidth ... pointing out that
coast-to-coast terrestrial gigabit bandwidth has the same problems as
satellite latency at lower bandwidth.

past hsdt posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
>>> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
>>> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
>> 
>> That continues today in retail.  My drugstore now features a full
>> aisle dedicated to grocery items.  The supermarket has a pharmacy
>> and bank and even sells some clothes.  Walmart and Target have 
>> big food sections.
>> 
>> In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
>> used to be the province of the cable companies.  But the cable
>> companies now deliver phone and computer service.
>> 
>> In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
>> service and prices for the consumer, not better.  The reliability
>> of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
>> that of the traditional telephone company.  But the nice profits
>> has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
>> too to save money and make the profits, too.  (The companies are
>> more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
>> consumers with good prices or good quality.)
>> 
>> 
>> I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
>> they'll cut off my classic landline.  I'll be S.O.L.
>> 
>
> I don't think they can, legally. I don't know why I keep my landline -
> we're away now six months a year, and we've gotten used to using our cell
> phones. Despite the terrible quality, there are a lot of advantages to each
> of us having our own phone, and being able to take (and make) calls when
> we're out.

That appears to be on a state-by-state basis.
https://www.moneytalksnews.com/landline-phone-disappearing-in-these-20-states/

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.
>
> Originally, CKD disk could trade off excess channel & I/O capacity in
> the mid-60s (with sequential search operations) against scarce real
> memory.

The IBM 1311 was the predecessor to the IBM 2311.
Same size cabinet, layout, disks.
The key difference was that the IBM 1311 could be
read and written with really simple commands.
On our 1440 we used a 500 character routine to do everything
we needed with the disk.
The IBM 2311 required an entire OS to use.

-- 
Dan Espen

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
>> telephone area, including long distance.  They also were unwilling
>> to provide telephone services needed by customers.  Customers started
>> to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled.  Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names).  ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
>> Justice to start monopoly proceedings.  The breakup had nothing
>> to do with the computing business.
>
> Sorry, but not true.
>
> Imagine you own a luncheonette.  You pay rent and taxes, and provide
> your customers with restrooms and parking.
>
> Someone sets up a pushcart selling hot dogs on the public sidewalk
> in front of your place.  He pays no taxes.  Then, his customers use
> your parking lot and your restrooms.  You wouldn't like that at all.
>
> The newcomer long distance companies wanted the revenues, but
> didn't want the underlying expenses of being common carrier.
> They expected AT&T to provide things for free or below cost,
> which was not fair to AT&T.

Well, if I could recall the guy's name, I would refer you to
his book and interviews where he talked about ATT not providing
the new kinds of services their business customers wanted.
He was a VP or P of ATT.

In the early 70s DEC wanted an internal phone system.  ATT told
Kotok that is couldn't be done and Kotok told them how it could
be done.  Later Kotok designed DEC's internal phone system.

/BAH

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-7, Dan Espen wrote:

> I think one of the steps IBM always goes through is when they
> ask themselves, "Is this process
[too]
> simple?  Can our competitors
> duplicate it?".
> 
> Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.

LOL!

John Savard

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+1
>>>>>
>>>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>
>>>A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>>Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>rather
>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>> idiot-in-chief.
>
>Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>banking system imploded so they should get some.

No, they haven't.    Every one of my stocks that pay dividends have
increased the dividend annually for the last decade.   The single
exception being GE, which suffered self-inflicted financial damage.

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>> 
>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>> 
>>> Cite?
>>> 
>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>> rather
>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>> idiot-in-chief.
>> 
>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
> 
> No, they haven't.    Every one of my stocks that pay dividends have
> increased the dividend annually for the last decade.   The single
> exception being GE, which suffered self-inflicted financial damage.
> 
> 

But, many companies don't pay dividends, but use the money to goose the
stock price so that shareholders can take the profits as ling-term capital
gains at a lower rate.

-- 
Pete

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate taxes
>>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
>>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>> 
>>>> Cite?
>>>> 
>>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>>> rather
>>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>> 
>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>> 
>> No, they haven't.    Every one of my stocks that pay dividends have
>> increased the dividend annually for the last decade.   The single
>> exception being GE, which suffered self-inflicted financial damage.
>> 
>> 
>
>But, many companies don't pay dividends, but use the money to goose the
>stock price so that shareholders can take the profits as ling-term capital
>gains at a lower rate.
>

granted, but that doesn't support Barb's statement.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >"Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
taxes
>>>>>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>+1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
interest.
>>>>Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
>>>>so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders
>>rather
>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>
>>Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>banking system imploded so they should get some.
>
> No, they haven't.    Every one of my stocks that pay dividends have
> increased the dividend annually for the last decade.   The single
> exception being GE, which suffered self-inflicted financial damage.

Mine haven't.  Would you mind mentioning one stock which has been
increasing (sector would be fine)?  The increases for the stocks I
hold just started to increase dividends in the last year or two.

/BAH

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:

>Mine haven't.  Would you mind mentioning one stock which has been
>increasing (sector would be fine)? 

For starters:

https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=lmt
https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=MMM
https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=WR
https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=dri
https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=NSC

KO split in 2012, which halved the per-share dividend, but it was
increasing annually before, and after.

https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=ko

F had a one year blip but otherwise the general trend has
been up.

https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=f

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:52:41 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Trump proposes new small tactical nukes.
>> What do you think?
>
> I thought they developed those 40 years ago.  Watson Jr, in his
> memoir, mentions that in his post IBM service with the US Govt,
> he saw nuclear weapons with "dial a yield".  He thought that
> was creepy.

http://tinyurl.com/y7sxtodz

  Mattis: The U.S. Needs a Smaller Nuke to Prevent Nuclear War

> Anyway, given that today we have some pretty awesome delivery
> missiles--"when we blow up the wall, which way do you want
> it to fall?"--so maybe tactical nukes aren't necessary.
>
> Nukes are nasty because they give off unseen deadly radiation and
> contamination.  A conventional bomb blows up and it's done.  But
> a nuke contaminates with nasty stuff.

Right.  Bomb North Korea and all of a sudden you've got problems
in South Korea, Japan, China, Russia.  Even considering usage
is STUPID beyond belief.

Besides, that's just what we need, small nukes that can be smuggled
into various places.

> I wonder how many baby boomers died from leukemia induced as a
> result from nuke testing of the 1950s and 1960s.

Not as bad as Howard Hughes thought.

-- 
Dan Espen

On 2018-02-09, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>
>> Thanks for posting that.
>>
>> Over the last few days, Republicans in congress have been shedding
>> crocodile tears over the so-called 'destruction' of the U.S. military.
>> Sure seems to me, that with all their ships, planes, and rockets,
>> that we're in pretty good shape.
>>
>> It's been often said that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow
>> the world up many times over.  So why do we need more of them, 
>> as proposed by the current administration?  Are we gonna 
>> detonate an H-bomb over ISIS?
>
> Trump proposes new small tactical nukes.
> What do you think?
>

No source, but I remember that the US developed a nuclear cannon
shell. The problem was that the gun  could not reach a distance that
was outside outside the nuclear danger area of the explosion. Then
there was the nuclear device that could be carried by one man.

I was driven around the Washington Beltway once by a relative who
lived near there. My, those shiny offices.

Catch-22 was not that far out.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>Mine haven't.  Would you mind mentioning one stock which has been
>>increasing (sector would be fine)?
>
> For starters:
>
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=lmt
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=MMM
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=WR
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=dri
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=NSC
>
> KO split in 2012, which halved the per-share dividend, but it was
> increasing annually before, and after.
>
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=ko
>
> F had a one year blip but otherwise the general trend has
> been up.
>
> https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=f

I hadn't noticed KO's.  I haven't had F long enough to see
its trend.

Thanks.

/BAH

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Dave Garland wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>
>>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>Obama admin.
>
> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>
> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>
Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
by gutting.

/BAH

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>>
>>>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>>Obama admin.
>>
>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>
>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>
>Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
>was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
>by gutting.

And again, you make that statement without any supporting evidence.

They've been spending on war. lots and lots of wasted $$.

On 2/9/2018 9:28 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>>
>>> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>> Obama admin.
>>
>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>
>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>
> Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
> was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
> by gutting.

Fair point, if the money was being spent on big parades or overpriced 
equipment. But monster parades aren't happening yet (give Trump some 
time), and defense contractors are always going to make out like 
bandits, because Congress won't stand up to them. So what's your 
metric for "war-ready", if not gross money?

Mind you, whether or not they're "war ready", they're players in 
several wars in spite of that.

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>> 
>> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>> Obama admin.
> 
> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
> 
> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
> 

We don't have enough personnel. Excessive work hours and lack of time for
training are blamed for the recent ship collisions. The military has been
operating with the friggin "continuing resolutions" for funding, so they
haven't been able to plan capital expenditures.

-- 
Pete

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the
military).
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>>>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>>>Obama admin.
>>>
>>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>>
>>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>>
>>Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
>>was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
>>by gutting.
>
> And again, you make that statement without any supporting evidence.
>
> They've been spending on war. lots and lots of wasted $$.


Exactly.  What's wasted doesn't pay for practical things required
for war-readyness.  This is simply common sense.

/BAH

Dave Garland wrote:
> On 2/9/2018 9:28 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the
military).
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>>> they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>>> Obama admin.
>>>
>>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>>
>>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>>
>> Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
>> was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
>> by gutting.
>
> Fair point, if the money was being spent on big parades or overpriced
> equipment. But monster parades aren't happening yet (give Trump some
> time), and defense contractors are always going to make out like
> bandits, because Congress won't stand up to them. So what's your
> metric for "war-ready", if not gross money?

The existence of an inventory of replacement parts; tools required
for maintenance and servicing on-site at every site.  High morale
of troops.  Low dependency on contractors for the basic military
actions.  Less reliance on the National Guard for crucial special
[what's the word I want?] services.
>
> Mind you, whether or not they're "war ready", they're players in
> several wars in spite of that.

These aren't real wars where the goal is to win hard enough so
that the mindset of the opponent is changed.  Even the mindset
of the US population believes that a war is only WWI-style.
That's changed.

/BAH