28 ms·

Really? You might change your mind when you consider that Bell Labs (part of the "Soviet Bureau" you despise) created: - The transistor - The laser - The C la

by Nrsolis 14y ago

Really? You might change your mind when you consider that Bell Labs (part of the "Soviet Bureau" you despise) created: - The transistor - The laser - The C language - The Unix operating system Other notable discoveries (but not of concern to those who discount anything not Internet-related) are things like the cosmic background radiation, etc. etc. etc. SO: as much as I hate to defend "the telcos" (wired/wireless/cable) which according to the OP are completely interchangable and not at all distinguishable, they had their good points. What you're (probably) pissed about is the business model that (most) telcos are forced to follow since deregulation. Consider this: since deregulation, the cost to deliver bandwidth has dropped so significantly that it's actually CHEAPER to build a "telco" now than it was just 10 years ago. Once you factor in the cost to build out fiber links and light those with equipment, you get more bandwidth today than your earlier competitors got. Hey, there's still a few dialup providers around. Maybe you think thats a better option?

papsosouid 14y ago
>You might change your mind when you consider that Bell Labs (part of the "Soviet Bureau" you despise) created Just because bell labs was owned by a telco, doesn't mean they were a telco. A research organization existing under the ownership of a telco company doesn't make telcos provide good service, or have fair prices, or have good customer service.
- larrys 14y ago
  "Just because bell labs was owned by a telco" They were able to do that because they were a public utility with guaranteed profits. The stock and earnings were stable ("widow and orphan" money was an expression for people who needed these safe investments). Something important to keep in mind. Really not possible to do that in today's competitive disruptive environment.
  - javert 14y ago
    Yeah, I completely agree, it's just obviously not possible for companies to do research anymore. Anyone who doesn't see this - I just don't understand how you can fail to.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - niels_olson 14y ago
      > obviously not possible for companies to do research anymore Er, does Google nor do research? apple? IBM? Samsung? My dad worked for a railroad. They did R&D...
      - javert 14y ago
        I was being sarcastic. I was parroting what I was seeing in the comments of a different story at the time. I would not be surprised if the 3 net upvotes I got were due to people not appreciating the sarcasm and just being stupid.
  - timthorn 14y ago
    IBM isn't a public utility with guaranteed profits, but they do a fair amount of both fundamental and applied research.
    - Nrsolis 14y ago
      IBM has one of the most extensive patent portfolios known to man. Whatever basic research they do, it's definitely in pursuit of digits for the bottom line.
  - tesseractive 14y ago
    By the way, MSR was created as an active attempt to recreate an analogue to Bell Labs. It certainly doesn't have anything as foundational to show for it as transistors or lasers, but it's certainly possible for today's big tech companies to do the same kind of work.
ilovecomputers 14y ago
Well those innovations were all thanks to AT&Ts monopoly status where they didn't have to worry about quarterly reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-and-the-bell-labs-miracle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-... Also Unix was a rogue project because Bell Labs didn't want to fund an OS project after a previous one failed: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix/0 http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-strange-birt...
- yaix 14y ago
  More importantly, it was before the 1980s.
tomsaffell 14y ago
Yes, there is a time and a place for everything: monopolistic telcos did society good in the past. But now is not the time for a lack of competition / oligopoly in the telecommunications industry.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  Where did you get the idea I was suggesting that we go backwards? All I'm saying is that things haven't gotten worse. In fact, they've gotten MUCH BETTER. Just because the OP hasn't EVER been satisfied with a telco isn't any reason to discount all the good that they do or the progress that's been made. Some folks forget that cellular companies in the US were fighting an uphill battle against the telcos for a while. The compromise was for an "A" carrier (telco) and a "B" carrier (non-telco). So competition was built into the program for telecom modernization from the start. Back then, a mobile phone cost $300-$800, service cost $30/month and included no free minutes (priced at $.10-.25) each. It didn't matter which provider you chose because that's what it cost to build the network in a greenfield environment. And here is the rub: the OP can have almost ANY kind of service he wants. Don't like the incumbent? There are any number of CLECs that will lease you a fiber pair directly to the local colo for 20 years. PROBLEM SOLVED.
chimeracoder 14y ago
You're leaving out a very key point: because of an antitrust case against AT&T, they were forbidden from turning their non-telephone technology into proprietary products. In other words, they were essentially conducting research for the public interest at no real cost to the public. That's very different from any definition of a 'monopoly' that I'm aware of, and very different from modern network providers. Many factors were essential to Unix's success, but the fact that it was anything but a monopolized product is certainly one of them.
- wmf 14y ago
  No cost to the public? Instead of doing research they could have provided better support (or perhaps lower prices) to their actual customers.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >they could have provided better support (or perhaps lower prices) to their actual customers // You can level this at any company making a profit. Are you happy with companies making profit? [If so] Well then why not companies using what would be profits on beneficial research.
    - progrock 14y ago
      I guess the problem here is that they are under no legal framework, for what they do with their profits. ISPs these days I'd have thought would actually be classed as a utility company. Many local governments - even the police are using the Internet for information dissemination. So we are reliant upon it. For me it's a natural replacement, it sure beats wasting reems of paper. In some ways utility companies should be under tougher regulation. I'd prefer them to be non-profits. But you have to incentivise prospective investors some way. Perhaps social enterprises could fill this space? Profits could be capped at lower levels and positive reinvestment enforced. Quite how though? I am sure money could easily be hemorrhaged through R & D departments, maybe it should go in a general state sponsored science money pot.
  - Jacqued 14y ago
TruthElixirX 14y ago
You cannot prove that those things would not have come about without Bell Labs. Seeing as Google is doing this, Mozilla is building "Rust", and HP created a memristor, I'm pretty sure a similar list of inventions (transistor, laser, C language, UNIX) would have come out without Bell Labs.

by Nrsolis 14y ago

papsosouid 14y ago

>You might change your mind when you consider that Bell Labs (part of the "Soviet Bureau" you despise) created Just because bell labs was owned by a telco, doesn't mean they were a telco. A research organization existing under the ownership of a telco company doesn't make telcos provide good service, or have fair prices, or have good customer service.

larrys 14y ago
"Just because bell labs was owned by a telco" They were able to do that because they were a public utility with guaranteed profits. The stock and earnings were stable ("widow and orphan" money was an expression for people who needed these safe investments). Something important to keep in mind. Really not possible to do that in today's competitive disruptive environment.
- javert 14y ago
  Yeah, I completely agree, it's just obviously not possible for companies to do research anymore. Anyone who doesn't see this - I just don't understand how you can fail to.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - niels_olson 14y ago
    > obviously not possible for companies to do research anymore Er, does Google nor do research? apple? IBM? Samsung? My dad worked for a railroad. They did R&D...
    - javert 14y ago
      I was being sarcastic. I was parroting what I was seeing in the comments of a different story at the time. I would not be surprised if the 3 net upvotes I got were due to people not appreciating the sarcasm and just being stupid.
- timthorn 14y ago
  IBM isn't a public utility with guaranteed profits, but they do a fair amount of both fundamental and applied research.
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    IBM has one of the most extensive patent portfolios known to man. Whatever basic research they do, it's definitely in pursuit of digits for the bottom line.
- tesseractive 14y ago
  By the way, MSR was created as an active attempt to recreate an analogue to Bell Labs. It certainly doesn't have anything as foundational to show for it as transistors or lasers, but it's certainly possible for today's big tech companies to do the same kind of work.

ilovecomputers 14y ago

Well those innovations were all thanks to AT&Ts monopoly status where they didn't have to worry about quarterly reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-and-the-bell-labs-miracle.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/innovation-... Also Unix was a rogue project because Bell Labs didn't want to fund an OS project after a previous one failed: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix/0 http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-strange-birt...

yaix 14y ago
More importantly, it was before the 1980s.

tomsaffell 14y ago

Yes, there is a time and a place for everything: monopolistic telcos did society good in the past. But now is not the time for a lack of competition / oligopoly in the telecommunications industry.

Nrsolis 14y ago
Where did you get the idea I was suggesting that we go backwards? All I'm saying is that things haven't gotten worse. In fact, they've gotten MUCH BETTER. Just because the OP hasn't EVER been satisfied with a telco isn't any reason to discount all the good that they do or the progress that's been made. Some folks forget that cellular companies in the US were fighting an uphill battle against the telcos for a while. The compromise was for an "A" carrier (telco) and a "B" carrier (non-telco). So competition was built into the program for telecom modernization from the start. Back then, a mobile phone cost $300-$800, service cost $30/month and included no free minutes (priced at $.10-.25) each. It didn't matter which provider you chose because that's what it cost to build the network in a greenfield environment. And here is the rub: the OP can have almost ANY kind of service he wants. Don't like the incumbent? There are any number of CLECs that will lease you a fiber pair directly to the local colo for 20 years. PROBLEM SOLVED.

chimeracoder 14y ago

You're leaving out a very key point: because of an antitrust case against AT&T, they were forbidden from turning their non-telephone technology into proprietary products. In other words, they were essentially conducting research for the public interest at no real cost to the public. That's very different from any definition of a 'monopoly' that I'm aware of, and very different from modern network providers. Many factors were essential to Unix's success, but the fact that it was anything but a monopolized product is certainly one of them.

wmf 14y ago
No cost to the public? Instead of doing research they could have provided better support (or perhaps lower prices) to their actual customers.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >they could have provided better support (or perhaps lower prices) to their actual customers // You can level this at any company making a profit. Are you happy with companies making profit? [If so] Well then why not companies using what would be profits on beneficial research.
  - progrock 14y ago
    I guess the problem here is that they are under no legal framework, for what they do with their profits. ISPs these days I'd have thought would actually be classed as a utility company. Many local governments - even the police are using the Internet for information dissemination. So we are reliant upon it. For me it's a natural replacement, it sure beats wasting reems of paper. In some ways utility companies should be under tougher regulation. I'd prefer them to be non-profits. But you have to incentivise prospective investors some way. Perhaps social enterprises could fill this space? Profits could be capped at lower levels and positive reinvestment enforced. Quite how though? I am sure money could easily be hemorrhaged through R & D departments, maybe it should go in a general state sponsored science money pot.
- Jacqued 14y ago

TruthElixirX 14y ago

You cannot prove that those things would not have come about without Bell Labs. Seeing as Google is doing this, Mozilla is building "Rust", and HP created a memristor, I'm pretty sure a similar list of inventions (transistor, laser, C language, UNIX) would have come out without Bell Labs.