6 ms·

Interesting Facts about Bell Labs and 2001: A Space Odyssey (2001)

60 points by ecliptik 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
anyone have a link to the exact terms of the 1956 consent decree?
- Aloha 4y ago
  I couldn't find it, but it basically limited AT&T to regulated telecom services, here is some interesting reading on the target. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust...
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    thanks. After: > The case ended with a consent decree on January 24, 1956, containing two remedies: First, the Bell System had to license ... its patents ... Second, the Bell System was barred from engaging in any business other than telecommunications. I'm still mystified, because telecommunications in space would presumably still be telecommunications, just light-seconds kind of tele-?
    - Aloha 4y ago
      It was an issue because licensing their logo was not a telecommunications use. Some more background on the consent decree, first one needs to understand what state of the art was in 1956 - * No Digital anything, PCM was on the drawing boards, but not in production. * Analog FDMA carrier, either over open wire, coax or microwave. * DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) had just been introduced to large cities, but was still not universally available, even in places with dial service. * Significant amounts of open wire carrier in large swaths of the country, the coming microwave and coax networks were still under construction. * No transistors capable of much over 1 MHz * Electromechanical Switching, however remreed and transistorized stored program switching was on the drawing boards. * No Touch Tone dialing, all dial service is rotary, however significant parts of the country still have manual only service. The big fear was Bell getting into computing or any other kinds of high technology - simply because of their steady revenue from the BOC's - they could sustain a loss on a new line of business for many years while they developed the technology. To give further background, AT&T developed roughly half of the foundational technologies that powers our world today.
    - toast0 4y ago
      From other comments, I believe they were limited to regulated telecommunications, not just any telecom, and limited to the US and Canada (they didn't divest Bell Canada until sometime after 1956). They partipated (which included a lot of enabling r&d at bell labs, etc) in submarine cables and satellite communications to connect with other telephone operators abroad, but they didn't run telephone operations outside the country (and Canada). And they certainly would not have had a payphone outside the country. Of course, maybe the space component would be considered in the united states for regulatory reasons, etc, in which case it's fine. Or maybe the FCC claims to regulate the space end despite lack of jurisdiction, that'd be fine too.
midoridensha 4y ago
The article discusses the picture-phone in 2001 as if it's commonplace technology today, but it really isn't. It's available, but people don't actually use it much outside of Zoom meetings for work. I've tried getting my family to use video chats to keep in touch since I live so far away from them, and either they can't be bothered (they just want to use voice, no video, and even this is rare), or they use their phone held in their hand so all I see is a blurry, shaky image far worse than the worst shaky-cam movie you can think of. We have the technical means to have great video chats, but we don't really use them; instead, people now prefer to communicate solely by text message, so we're effectively going back to something like a fancy telegraph.
- wfriesen 4y ago
  I think of the classic sci-fi depiction of "picture phones", and they are almost exclusively a device mounted on a wall, much like the original telephone. Maybe it's just a usability issue, in that holding a phone pointing at yourself is a bit annoying?
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Colossus: The Forbin Project had videophones everywhere, but they were shaped like tiny terminals, placed on desktops, and there is at least one scene where a someone wants to use the device and moves it to face them, so the devices are not fastened.
    - EvanAnderson 4y ago
      These sound similar to the video intercoms in Star Trek (1966). They sit on desktops and can rotate.
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Those can rotate, but they are not discrete units, and can not be moved around on the desk.
    - 4y ago
bvm 4y ago
This is from 2016, not 2001, though I can see how the submitter thought otherwise!
gumby 4y ago
I was confused about the AT&T complaint, since AT&T and the Bell system were the same My italics for the confusing part): > What is even more interesting, however, is that Noll almost got into trouble for submitting the Bell System seal to producers who then displayed the seal outside of the video-phone booth in the movie (shown below). AT&T accused Bell System of violating a consent decree, which outlined that the Bell System could only cover domestic telecommunication. By depicting the logo in a space station in the film, it was implied that the System worked in space, which violated the consent decree … crazy right? Fortunately, they were able to settle the dispute. Turns out this is likely be a typo. AT&T was afraid that the movie's depiction might imply that they were willing to violate their consent decree, and I guess the lawyers wanted to claim it was unauthorized in case the government contacted them. Kind of like the blustery letters lawyers sometimes send about trademarks: they have no intention of doing anything, but have to demonstrate that they "took steps to defend their trademark". This is explained at this link that covers a lot of the same material (not surprising for an archivist, who was probably the same source for both): https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odys... > After the movie appeared in early 1968, a manager at AT&T telephoned me to complain strongly that the Bell System seal had been used in the movie. AT&T objected because the use of the Bell seal implied that the Bell System was providing telecommunication service outside the United States, which court decree forbade it from doing. When I told the AT&T person that Pierce had approved my effort I was saved from the wrath. ...
random3 4y ago
I find the Bell Labs phenomenon fascinating. This book highlights some of the fascinating parts and one of my favorites. It goes in more detail about the video phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory.
- rotexo 4y ago
  Just finished this book and I agree wholeheartedly. It is pretty mind-bending for me to consider the extent of the technological changes that happened in my grandmother’s lifetime, and how quickly those changes just faded into the background. I particularly liked how the author presented several different viewpoints at the end on what made bell labs such fertile ground.
hilbert42 4y ago
The day 2001: A Space Odyssey opened in a theatre where I live the prac physics class at my university was almost empty much to the chagrin of the physics tutor. He didn't need to be told why his class had disappeared such was the film's publicly. Next day we all cropped it especially me because I'd also just written a critical piece in the student rag about how badly science was being taught—right, it didn't go unnoticed (sometimes one loses one's presence of mind and that was just such an occasion). I recall leaving the theatre with my mates in complete silence, we were essentially struck dumb while trying to understand or explain the film's unusual ending. Eventually we stammered out what we thought were explanations whilst trying to find the right adjectives. I cannot ever recall leaving another film in such a strange emotional state. I am not and never have been a science fiction movie fan - Star Wars and such leave me bored to tears, I find science itself far more intesting, it's actually real and not just make believe. However, 2001 is in a different league altogether and for me the film remains one of the truly great film masterpieces. Much has been written about it so there's nothing I can add except to say it has stood the test of time—over a half century later it still thrills and entertains. Only two weeks ago I saw the film again on TV and it still has retained much of its original aura. Yes, time and technology has partially caught up with it but only just—and I wish the film would be fully restored or digitally remastered to its former glory. (I recall seeing a re-release of the film some seven or eight years after its first screening, this time in 70mm and not in its original Super Panavision format and I was somewhat disappointed as the print had lost some of its original lustre, the fantastic kaleidoscopic colours that appeared towards the end of the film were less intense and less saturated than the original (none of the copies I've seen since have equalled the truly excellent quality of that original Super Panavision print I saw back in 1968.)

60 points by ecliptik 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago

anyone have a link to the exact terms of the 1956 consent decree?

Aloha 4y ago
I couldn't find it, but it basically limited AT&T to regulated telecom services, here is some interesting reading on the target. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust...
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  thanks. After: > The case ended with a consent decree on January 24, 1956, containing two remedies: First, the Bell System had to license ... its patents ... Second, the Bell System was barred from engaging in any business other than telecommunications. I'm still mystified, because telecommunications in space would presumably still be telecommunications, just light-seconds kind of tele-?
  - Aloha 4y ago
    It was an issue because licensing their logo was not a telecommunications use. Some more background on the consent decree, first one needs to understand what state of the art was in 1956 - * No Digital anything, PCM was on the drawing boards, but not in production. * Analog FDMA carrier, either over open wire, coax or microwave. * DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) had just been introduced to large cities, but was still not universally available, even in places with dial service. * Significant amounts of open wire carrier in large swaths of the country, the coming microwave and coax networks were still under construction. * No transistors capable of much over 1 MHz * Electromechanical Switching, however remreed and transistorized stored program switching was on the drawing boards. * No Touch Tone dialing, all dial service is rotary, however significant parts of the country still have manual only service. The big fear was Bell getting into computing or any other kinds of high technology - simply because of their steady revenue from the BOC's - they could sustain a loss on a new line of business for many years while they developed the technology. To give further background, AT&T developed roughly half of the foundational technologies that powers our world today.
  - toast0 4y ago
    From other comments, I believe they were limited to regulated telecommunications, not just any telecom, and limited to the US and Canada (they didn't divest Bell Canada until sometime after 1956). They partipated (which included a lot of enabling r&d at bell labs, etc) in submarine cables and satellite communications to connect with other telephone operators abroad, but they didn't run telephone operations outside the country (and Canada). And they certainly would not have had a payphone outside the country. Of course, maybe the space component would be considered in the united states for regulatory reasons, etc, in which case it's fine. Or maybe the FCC claims to regulate the space end despite lack of jurisdiction, that'd be fine too.

midoridensha 4y ago

The article discusses the picture-phone in 2001 as if it's commonplace technology today, but it really isn't. It's available, but people don't actually use it much outside of Zoom meetings for work. I've tried getting my family to use video chats to keep in touch since I live so far away from them, and either they can't be bothered (they just want to use voice, no video, and even this is rare), or they use their phone held in their hand so all I see is a blurry, shaky image far worse than the worst shaky-cam movie you can think of. We have the technical means to have great video chats, but we don't really use them; instead, people now prefer to communicate solely by text message, so we're effectively going back to something like a fancy telegraph.

wfriesen 4y ago
I think of the classic sci-fi depiction of "picture phones", and they are almost exclusively a device mounted on a wall, much like the original telephone. Maybe it's just a usability issue, in that holding a phone pointing at yourself is a bit annoying?
- teddyh 4y ago
  Colossus: The Forbin Project had videophones everywhere, but they were shaped like tiny terminals, placed on desktops, and there is at least one scene where a someone wants to use the device and moves it to face them, so the devices are not fastened.
  - EvanAnderson 4y ago
    These sound similar to the video intercoms in Star Trek (1966). They sit on desktops and can rotate.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Those can rotate, but they are not discrete units, and can not be moved around on the desk.
  - 4y ago

bvm 4y ago

This is from 2016, not 2001, though I can see how the submitter thought otherwise!

gumby 4y ago

I was confused about the AT&T complaint, since AT&T and the Bell system were the same My italics for the confusing part): > What is even more interesting, however, is that Noll almost got into trouble for submitting the Bell System seal to producers who then displayed the seal outside of the video-phone booth in the movie (shown below). AT&T accused Bell System of violating a consent decree, which outlined that the Bell System could only cover domestic telecommunication. By depicting the logo in a space station in the film, it was implied that the System worked in space, which violated the consent decree … crazy right? Fortunately, they were able to settle the dispute. Turns out this is likely be a typo. AT&T was afraid that the movie's depiction might imply that they were willing to violate their consent decree, and I guess the lawyers wanted to claim it was unauthorized in case the government contacted them. Kind of like the blustery letters lawyers sometimes send about trademarks: they have no intention of doing anything, but have to demonstrate that they "took steps to defend their trademark". This is explained at this link that covers a lot of the same material (not surprising for an archivist, who was probably the same source for both): https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey https://ethw.org/First-Hand:Bell_Labs_and_2001:_A_Space_Odys... > After the movie appeared in early 1968, a manager at AT&T telephoned me to complain strongly that the Bell System seal had been used in the movie. AT&T objected because the use of the Bell seal implied that the Bell System was providing telecommunication service outside the United States, which court decree forbade it from doing. When I told the AT&T person that Pierce had approved my effort I was saved from the wrath. ...

random3 4y ago

I find the Bell Labs phenomenon fascinating. This book highlights some of the fascinating parts and one of my favorites. It goes in more detail about the video phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idea_Factory.

rotexo 4y ago
Just finished this book and I agree wholeheartedly. It is pretty mind-bending for me to consider the extent of the technological changes that happened in my grandmother’s lifetime, and how quickly those changes just faded into the background. I particularly liked how the author presented several different viewpoints at the end on what made bell labs such fertile ground.

hilbert42 4y ago

The day 2001: A Space Odyssey opened in a theatre where I live the prac physics class at my university was almost empty much to the chagrin of the physics tutor. He didn't need to be told why his class had disappeared such was the film's publicly. Next day we all cropped it especially me because I'd also just written a critical piece in the student rag about how badly science was being taught—right, it didn't go unnoticed (sometimes one loses one's presence of mind and that was just such an occasion). I recall leaving the theatre with my mates in complete silence, we were essentially struck dumb while trying to understand or explain the film's unusual ending. Eventually we stammered out what we thought were explanations whilst trying to find the right adjectives. I cannot ever recall leaving another film in such a strange emotional state. I am not and never have been a science fiction movie fan - Star Wars and such leave me bored to tears, I find science itself far more intesting, it's actually real and not just make believe. However, 2001 is in a different league altogether and for me the film remains one of the truly great film masterpieces. Much has been written about it so there's nothing I can add except to say it has stood the test of time—over a half century later it still thrills and entertains. Only two weeks ago I saw the film again on TV and it still has retained much of its original aura. Yes, time and technology has partially caught up with it but only just—and I wish the film would be fully restored or digitally remastered to its former glory. (I recall seeing a re-release of the film some seven or eight years after its first screening, this time in 70mm and not in its original Super Panavision format and I was somewhat disappointed as the print had lost some of its original lustre, the fantastic kaleidoscopic colours that appeared towards the end of the film were less intense and less saturated than the original (none of the copies I've seen since have equalled the truly excellent quality of that original Super Panavision print I saw back in 1968.)