You "corrected" me, remember?
How many more people can you fit into the Corvette at one time as a result of that?
The bigger engine _may_ allow the car to travel faster, and thus make more trips. This is, however, totally unrelated to how many passengers it can carry per trip.
AND, if the travel speed is limited by things other than engine capacity -- e.g. speed limits, out-of-sync traffic lights, congestion, etc. then the car is _unable_ to make use of the larger engine, and there is no increase in speed possible.
Again, how many more people fit into it at one time as a result of that?
I've seen *one* occasion when the capabilities of a car gave extra choices for getting around a blockade. Northbound traffic is backed up -- nearly stationary -- for a couple of miles on a road with essentially *no* alternatives. there was a place a ways back, where you could turn left, and go six miles before you found another road going North. Or you could go back another half-mile, turn right, and go only 4 miles to find a chance to go North.
The perpetrator of this ducked over on the shoulder, went up a few hundred feed, and turned in at the _dead_end_ city park entrance. Somebody decided he 'knew something", and followed. And somebody else, And somebody else. A solid stream of cars following him down the _one_lane_ road.
It got really funny, when the 'leader of the pack' got to lake -- to the boat ramp, and ... see (Same type of vehicle, *not* the instance I'm relating.)
There had to have been at least 75 cars following him, up to that point. Now, with *nowhere* to go, no place for them all to turn around, and the road in is totally blocked with the 'me too!' crowd.
I was out in the main traffic jam, laughing my head (or other portions of the anatomy) off. I don't know _how_ they ever got that mess straightened out.
So much for the claim that they were monopolies, then.
I merely claimed that Bell/AT&T/WEco had their own self-interest as their primary, foremost, and over-riding consideration in running their business, and that any 'benefit' to the consumer came about because either it was 'incidental' to that self-interest, or because it was mandated by governmental authorities.
It is trivial to point to things that Bell/WEco/AT&T did that were _not_ in the best interest of the customers, but operated to Bell's advantage. See the 'Hushphone' lawsuit, for one of the more egregious examples.
I don't have to know when the upgrade was. I do know that the 'idle' CPU cycles were *not* there on the old machines to support on-line operations.
BTW, if you're going to claim a "correction", you are required to supply the 'correct' data to replace that which is, according to you, "in error".
If you _don't_ know the data, *yourself*, it is arrogance, cum hubris, to assert that someone else is 'incorrect'.
The CICS predecessor was IBM's first successful on-line system. Originally developed for Virginia Electric Power, in 1968, and given away to other users, until mid-1969, when IBM rolled it out as a 'pay for' product, under the CICS name.
What 'others' there were, and/or are. is irrelevant, as PAT confirms that S.O. was using CICS.
IBM's "official" in-house-developed terminal-processing system had a "little" problem. It took more than 10 minutes to IPL, and almost invariably crashed less than 10 minutes after that.
At the time the 370 came out, it was five times the processing power/speed if the high end of the 360 line, according to the IBM announcement, that is, But, like with Dartmouth, you may have better information.
Yes, a S/360 could run CICS. but you lost a 'non-trivial' amount of the CPU to the 'overhead' of doing so. If the machine did not have the 'spare' capacity to absorb that overhead, you could not run CICS and still get all the necessary work done. The machine was 'too small', and/or 'too heavily loaded', depending on your viewpoint ...
S.O was running close enough to hardware capacity, with the batch only operations, on the 360 that "available horsepower" to allow running CICS just "wasn't there".
"Strange" to you, maybe. In the real world, however, according to PAT....
You can find, and read Greene's decrees, for yourself.
The FCC rule-makings are a matter of public record, and available for your perusal as well.
The initial fund flow back to the ILECs was part-and-parcel of the divestiture, and the related equal access for competing IXCs.
Your point being? You asked for an "official" source. It's hard to get more "official" than the Judge who issued the court orders. (Note: I personally, would rather have seen IBM broken up, and the Bell System left alone, but that is _entirely_ irrelevant).
Yup. As another poster stated, the telephone charge structure was "irrational" for a _long_ time. When the various components had to be priced based on costs for _that_ components, there was a "rude awakening". for a lot of people.
I, personally, _never_ understood those exorbitant 'in-state' inter-LATA rates, either. It was incomprehensible to me, how a 2000 mile call to the west coast could be 1/4(!!) the cost of a 100-mile in-state call. What I saw was that inter-state rates plummeted, while inter-LATA intra-state rates declined "a bit", and intra-LATA calls got a lot more expensive.
Yup. complete agreement. Which is why I *don't* have any long-distance carrier or 'plan' today. It's cheaper to pay the 'single call' rates, when I make maybe 2-3 L.D. calls, with a total of under 5 minutes per month. The salescritters hawking those 'plans' get really upset when I suggest that their rates work out to over $1/minute, for my calling pattern.