It absolutely was too late. By 1984 IBM had pushed out the AT, and although from there,
we had PC stagnation until 1987, in those three years the rise of the IBM PC Clone was so
insurmountable that IBM couldn’t push the PS/2 on anyone. IBM had utterly lost momentum
and the Compaq Deskpro 386 with Windows/386 had setup the world in which we live in
today.
It’s crazy how seeming short that window was, and yet a company the size of IBM or
AT&T couldn’t compete.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Clem Cole
Sent: Tuesday, 12 December 2017 2:41 AM
To: Paul Winalski
Cc: TUHS main list
Subject: Re: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Paul Winalski <paul.winalski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/6/17, Jon Steinhart <jon(a)fourwinds.com> wrote:
There's another aspect of this that I think that many people misunderstand
which is that Judge Green gave AT&T exactly what they wanted. AT&T knew
that in the future the money was in data and were willing to trade their
monopoly for that business. From their perspective, it worked. For the
rest of us, not so good.
Except that the new AT&T, liberated from the regulatory chains of the
Bell operating companies, never learned how to compete in the free
market. They got their clock cleaned by the competition. In
desperation they bought Olivetti and only managed to run it into the
ground
To be fair you are both right. I think at the time Charlie Brown and Team at AT&T
wanted to make a go at IBM and DEC (i.e. large systems) and Paul's right, they
missed.
But Jon is right that they had realized that it going to be a data centric business and he
and his team felt that the current consent decree we going to keep them from being players
in it.
To me there were a couple of issues. The Phone System and 'TPC' was centrally
controlled (a lot like a communist country). Where it worked, it was fine. But... the
problem was that anything outside their view of reality was a threat. It's
funny as the time, IBM, DEC et al were trying to build centrally managed (closed garden
networks) too, just like the phone system, so it was not a stretch for them the think that
way.
IP and datagrams were very much built on no central control, which was something TPC
thought was bad and fought. I remember so, so many of those fights at the time and
trying to explain that IP was going to win. In the end, it was MetCalfe's law
(which was formulated on observations about the phone system) that caused IP to win, along
with "Clark's Observation" making everything a "network of
networks" instead if a single managed system - which made the plumbing work.
So while I find it sad to see Comcast, Current version of AT&T, Verizon et al, all
want to see the net neutrality go away, I do not find it surprising. Its the same
behavior as before.
What would have happened if Judge Green had not broken them up? I do think broadband
would be more universal, but .... I suspect AT&T would have fought it and tried to use
things that dreamed up (ATM, ISDN, et al).
My 2 cents....
Clem