You apparently know more about DTSS than _Dartmouth_ does. I checked the Dartmouth history before posting that. Yes, Dartmouth invented time-sharing, I acknowledged that. Development _started_ in 1963, but it wasn't operational until May of 1964. (It supported an entire *TWO* terminals in its original form.)
Quote:
"In September, 1963, under the direction of mathematics professors John G. Kemeny and Thomas E. Kurtz, a project to establish a time-sharing system at Dartmouth got under way. The fruits of this project were BASIC, a simplified programming language, and a time-sharing system -- using the GE-235 and Datanet-30 computers. This system began operations in May, 1964. In 1965, Dartmouth placed off-campus terminals in secondary schools in the area. "
By September '64, they had upped the capacity to a whopping 7 terminals.
Your opinion does not agree with the official rulings of the Illinois regulatory authorities. Thus, it is safe to say that in the jurisdiction where the events occurred, you are quite wrong.
Yes, there are benefits (a few 'direct', many 'indirect') to 'speed'.
*NO*, they do not relate to the *number* of established calls that can be handled simultaneously.Putting a bigger engine in a Corvette will let it "go faster"; it is utterly irrelevant, however, to increasing the number of passengers that that car can carry.
Faster control elements does _not_ let you handle more calls, unless you had an insufficient number of control elements to begin with. The limiting constraint on call-volume handling is "elsewhere".
What "faster speed" does is let you handle the *same* load of calls with fewer control elements. This is not an increase in 'capacity'; merely a decrease in 'unit cost'.
Some people have seen franchise documents with fixed numbers specified. One can even find regulatory agency filings where it was argued that the franchise-guaranteed rate was insufficient, due to the present rate of inflation.
You've never seen tracks for two competing railroads running side-by-side? Tell me, in 1950, say, who had the 'monopoly' for passenger service between New York City, and Chicago? Or for freight between those locations, for that matter?
Bell System held _exclusive_ franchises -- including the exclusive right to run telephone cabling on public right-of-way -- for telephone operations in many areas of the country. In other areas, Central Telephone, or United Telephone (later, United Telecom) held that franchise. Where such exclusive franchise existed, they were a de jure monopoly. as well as being a common- carrier.
Repeating for the illiterate: 'native' touch-tone operation was substantially cheaper for the telco than was 'native' pulse dialing.
They retrofitted dial-to-pulse conversion on SxS switches so that they could 'pre-convert' customers to touch-tone before the switch was converted to native touch-tone dialing.
This was a "short-term" expenditure of money now, to maximize "long-term" benefits. By having a significant "installed base" of touch-tone users *already*in*place* when the C.O. was converted to _native_touch-tone_ handling, they could get by with far fewer sets of digit decoders (dial or pulse). With 'pulse' tieing up the decoders for average more than five times as long as touch-tone, there _was_ significant benefit to be obtained. getting even 20% of the calls on touch-tone, meant a _halving_ of the number of decoder elements required.
The intent was to 'spend a little money now' to 'save a _lot_ of money later'. Especially since that 'spend a little money now' could be done by making the customers pay for _that_ money, when the 'savings' did *not* have to be given back.
It can be enterta> Your one example is off. AT&T introduced the picturephone at the NY
Picturephone *was* offered to the public, in 'limited' markets. for a few years. It wasn't really marketed, because it was still quasi-experimental, the picture part worked only on local calls. but it was available. A few exchanges in Chicago, similarly in Los Angeles. And, I believe, at least one east-coast location as well.
In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in respnse to :
Historical note: the IBM 370 line was announced in June, 1970, with first customer shipments the following spring.
Probably '71 or '72. After upgrade to a S/370 gave them the horsepower to run '> Michael D. Sullivan wrote:
That would be generally considered "late" in the decade. Typically, x0-x3 was 'early', x4-x6 was 'mid', and 'x7-x9' was 'late. Sometimes people would blur things, and do things like call x6-x7 'late mid".
The data-line growth at that time was the proverbial 'drop in the bucket' compared to a decade later.
Nit: Teletype Corp. was, since 1930, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Electric.
Teletype also had competition in the manufacture of such devices. GE, among the 'big name' manufacturers. Also people like Xerox, Northeast Electronics, and even Fujitsu.
Is Judge Greene, or the FCC, enough of an authority?
After divestiture, there is a documented hard-dollar amount that the IXCs had to pay LECs _per_customer_ to make up the 'lost revenues' from the prior LD to local service subsidation. A declining amount over the years, but initially several dollars per month/line. placing it at circa 20-25% of what customers were billed for basic local service.
It was set initially to be roughly equivalent total revenues to what the local service operations got in 'subsidy' from the long distance operation.