| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362459 is a reply to message #362437] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:29   |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-03, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
>
> Mostly didn't see where the market was going. In hindsight the way
> to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
> in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
> Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
> comers. They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
> processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
> operating system.
>
> But they didn't do that.
AT&T was used to operating in a monopoly environment.
They never managed to adapt to a competitive mindset.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362460 is a reply to message #362450] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:42 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
IBM formed satellite business systems with comsat and aetna. There was
folklore that SBS constantly lost money ... in part because what
IBM charged SBS for the gold plated equipment ... that what it made
off selling equipment more than offset its 1/3rd of SBS losses ...
then when SBS was dissolved, IBM reimbursed comsat and aetna
for their losses.
Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
.... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
for voice as it was for SNA.
I started with HSDT project in the early 80s ... and some of the SBS
people set things up to run HSDT over high-speed satellite links. HSDT
did rate-based pacing ... rather than window-base pacing ... so it not
only straight-forward handled single-hop round trip between US coasts
.... but also handled double-hop round trip between west coast and
europe.
past HSDT posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
some old HSDT related email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#hsdt
was also on the XTP technical advisory board
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
and wrote up rate-based pacing for XTP specification
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/xtprate.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362461 is a reply to message #362455] |
Sat, 03 February 2018 21:45 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 4 Feb 2018 02:29:24 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2018-02-03, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
>> be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
>> ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
>> it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
>> building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
>> longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
>> meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
>> a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
>> $40 phone lasting for 40 years.
>
> 'zackly. The Economy depends on consumers being stupid.
Funny thing, all my cheap crappy 10 buck phones still worked the last
time I had a phone line to connect them to. But I don't feel any need
for such any longer.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362474 is a reply to message #362450] |
Sun, 04 February 2018 00:29 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
other folklore ... guy doing M&A didn't bother to check ROLM's books
they quarter that they were acquired ... turns out it was the quarter
ROLM went into the RED.
HSDT was doing T1 and faster. IBM "officially" only had 2701 that did T1
.... so I had to deal with boxes from other vendors. 2701 was no longer
produced and the existing ones were really getting old.
I was told that to continue with HSDT I had to have at least some IBM
content. The only thing I could find was that FSD was producing T1
ZIRPEL cards for the Series/1 (replacing some number of gov. 2701 T1 on
special bids). I was told (not longer after IBM acquired ROLM) only
thing I could find were the S/1 ZIRPEL ... however ROLM was all data
general, but after the IBM acquisition, ROLM put in order for a year's
manufacturing of series/1. The person that had been running ROLM
datacenter I had worked with in their prior life at IBM ... so in order
to get some S/1, I had to do some horse trading (part of continuing
HSDT).
Later, some IBM people brought in to look at issues at ROLM. One was it
was taking more than 24hrs to load new test kernels into the data
general boxes over 56kbits/sec links. I was asked to help them with
upgrading to T1 (1.5mbytes/sec) links ... to significantly reduce the
test/debug cycles (nearly 30times faster to load new test/debug kernel)
from 24+hrs to less than hour.
For some of HSDT, had equipment being built on the other side of the
Pacific. The friday before a visit, somebody in Raleigh communication
group sent out an announcement for a new internal discussion group on
high-speed communication with the following definitionw
low-speed <9.6kbits
medium-speed 19.2kbits
high-speed 56kbits
very high-speed 1.5mbits
Monday morning on the wall of a conference room on the other
side of the pacific
low-speed <20mbits
medium-speed 100mbits
high-speed 200-300mbits
very high-speed >600mbits
....
the communication group had prepared a presentation for the corporate
executive committee that customers weren't interested in T1 for another
6-8 yrs. They had used customer data about 37x5 "fat pipes" ... number
of parallel 56kbit links operated as single logical link dropped to
zero at 5 or 6 links. What they didn't bother to include was that
typical telco tariff for T1 link was about the same as 5 or 6 56kbit
links ... customers just switched to non-IBM boxes supporting full
T1 when it got to that point (trivial survey found 200 customers
with T1 links supported by non-IBM boxes).
Later the communication group was somewhat forced into coming out with
box that sort of supported T1 terrestrial ... 3737 with lots of 68k
processors and boat loads of memory ... that simulated local
channel-to-channel adaptor (CTCA) ... immediately ACK'ing packet as soon
as the local box received it (because VTAM/SNA couldn't handle T1
terrestrial latency) ... and then using non-SNA between it and the
remote boxes ... even at that, max a 3737 could handle (partially
because of all the simualtion overhead) was 2mbits/sec
aggregate. full-duplex US T1 is 3mbits/sec aggregate (1.5mbits/sec in
each direction) and full-duplex EU T1 is 4mbites/sec aggregate
(2mbits/sec in each direction)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362493 is a reply to message #362459] |
Sun, 04 February 2018 10:55 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2018-02-03, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
>>
>> Mostly didn't see where the market was going. In hindsight the way
>> to structure it would have been to have two of the Baby Bells compete
>> in CPU manufacture, another couple in hardware, and another one sells
>> Unix with all the bells and whistles for, say, 200 bucks to all
>> comers. They'd have addressed all the concerns--second source for
>> processors, second source for assembled machines, well established
>> operating system.
>>
>> But they didn't do that.
>
> AT&T was used to operating in a monopoly environment.
> They never managed to adapt to a competitive mindset.
>
They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
telephone area, including long distance. They also were unwilling
to provide telephone services needed by customers. Customers started
to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled. Remember the
two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
their names). ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
Justice to start monopoly proceedings. The breakup had nothing
to do with the computing business.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362528 is a reply to message #362522] |
Sun, 04 February 2018 19:36 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 14:56:49 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names).
>
> Was one of them Sprint?
It's not (or wasn't at the time) Sprint, it's SPRINT--Southern Pacific
Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications. And I don't think it
was in danger of bankruptcy in the '80s.
>
> John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362535 is a reply to message #362522] |
Sun, 04 February 2018 21:15 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <e02d6925-2452-47c7-b7d4-918d1a7083fd@googlegroups.com> you write:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:55:53 AM UTC-7, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names).
>
> Was one of them Sprint?
Jeez, doesn't anyone remember anything.
The high profile bankruptcy was Worldcom which had merged with MCI and
went bankrupt in 2002, and CEO Bernie Ebbers went to jail. The corpse
of MCI was later merged into Verizon.
One of Sprint's predecessors United Telephone went bankrupt in 1937,
but that doesn't count. Sprint's had a lot of exciting financial
adventures, but the modern company has not gone bankrupt.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362567 is a reply to message #362380] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 09:31 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3 Feb 2018 09:13:32 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> There have been examples of US copanies recently buying Irish
>> companies and moving the company name to Ireland. I think the process is
>> called 'reversing into'. The whole thing is a spurious tax exercise.
>
> "Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
> were ludicrously high
Nonsense. US Companies were rolling in dough before the
manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
be paid for in our children's lifetime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362614 is a reply to message #362440] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:15 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 5:21:33 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
> hancock4 writes:
>
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:39:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>>> AT&T's management did not destroy Bell Labs. It was destroyed by the
>>>> lawyers who forced the breakup of AT&T.
>>
>>> Actually, the breakup was proposed by AT&T.
>>> They may or may not have lost the anti-trust suit.
>>> At the time, I thought not.
>>> Within the company, the story was that AT&T would be free to enter
>>> the computer maker market thereby becoming the next big thing.
>>
>> IMHO, at the time AT&T made the compromise decision (circa 1980),
>> their path seemed generally pretty reasonable, except, perhaps,
>> for keeping Western Electric.
>>
>> I think given the atmosphere of the time--there was a lot of anti-Bell
>> feeling among regulators, legislatures, Judge Greene*, DOJ, and
>> newcomers who wanted a piece of the market, that AT&T was doomed
>> in court.
>>
>> * Oslin's book says Greene was clearly out to 'get' the Bell System--
>> he thought it was an evil monopoly and he sought a reform agenda.
>>
>>> Ridiculous.
>>
>> Wanting to get into the computer business was certainly a good
>> decision by AT&T. The company had outstanding talent and
>> experience in electronics and software. It had the name.
>> It had Bell Labs and W/E to develop and manufacture stuff.
>> Unfortunately, like so many other large American companies,
>> it just didn't 'click' in the computer marketplace.
> With no reasonable sales force and lots of very able
> competition, they didn't stand a chance.
> I felt that way at the time.
Your point about the lack of a sales force is a good one. Though
the old Bell System had a sales force--such as encouraging customers
to get a premium telephone set or advanced equipment, basically
the old AT&T was not used to marketing products in a competitive
marketplace.
Indeed, in terms of selling computers, many companies did not
develop their sales forces the way IBM thoroughly trained it
sales force.
>> Remember, IBM was terrified in the 1950s of big players
>> like RCA and General Electric who had so much more than
>> IBM did, yet IBM prevailed.
>>
>> Indeed, at the time, everyone thought AT&T would give IBM
>> stiff competition in computers (and IBM would give AT&T
>> competition in communications).
>>
>> For whatever reasons, AT&T didn't succeed at computers.
> IBM went though an anti-trust case at around the same time.
> There was every reason to believe AT&T would have the same outcome.
There were a number of significant differences between the IBM and
AT&T break-up lawsuits of the 1970s:
.. IBM had changed its ways: IBM significantly revised its pricing
policies, eliminating bundling. This made it a lot easier for
hardware vendors to compete, and also allowed software vendors
to come into the marketplace. Some of the government's issues
were no longer valid.
.. IBM settled a major lawsuit with Control Data. This lawsuit was
a big part of the government's case, and when settled, the
government could no longer use the documentation (as traditional
in civil cases), hurting the government's case.
.. AT&T had more enemies. IBM served only business customers,
and generally (outside typewriters) large ones. In contrast,
AT&T served 85% of the people and businesses* in the continental
U.S. Everybody wanted lower telephone rates, and in those days
of social unrest, AT&T was a big target, more so than IBM.
Further, MCI wanted very badly to get into the long distance
market freely. Other companies wanted to sell telecommunications
equipment. AT&T had a 90% market share*, and others wanted a
piece of that pie. Nobody bothered to think about what they
would give up (except the military, which was worried.)
* The other 10% telecom market share was served by the
independent telephone companies, primarily General Telephone.
After Divestiture, many businesses found that won a 'hollow'
prize. Sure, they saved money on long distance and equipment.
But, now they had to spend money on telecom administration--
doing things the Bell System used to do for them. They had to
physically maintain their business telephone networks and
found it wasn't as easy as they thought. The Bell System
let go a lot of people, and companies ended up hiring them.
In terms of cost, it was "six of one, half dozen of the other."
For companies expanding at that time (my old employer was),
there was considerable disruption in acquiring and
operating both data lines and voice lines. Immediately
after Divestiture, AT&T and the Baby Bells began to
finger-point at each other, failing to resolve problems
and delaying installation. Coordination was terrible.
That employer had to go out and purchase specialized
network diagnostic equipment for the data lines and hire
people to operate it. It wasn't cheap.
My employer certainly did not see this as a cost savings,
especially unit managers who had a staff of people sitting
idle since their computer terminals were repeatedly down
due to line trouble. It took a few very frustrating years
to clean up the mess.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362615 is a reply to message #362439] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:19 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 5:15:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:
>> AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
>> be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
>> ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
>> it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
>> building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
>> longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
>> meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
>> a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
>> $40 phone lasting for 40 years.
> To be fair, today's "cheap" phones last a LOT longer than a year.
> I think I got 20 years out of my last set of wireless in-house phones.
> (The internal batteries stopped holding a charge.)
> I know I'm on 3 years with the newest set.
At the time of Divestiture, Conair, the hair dryer company,
made a $10 cheap landline phone (cordless phones weren't out
yet). It sounded terrible. Yank it or drop it and it stopped
working. But it was cheap. There were even cheaper sets out
there that were given away as a bonus for buying some product;
they were even worse.
BUT, consumers no longer had to pay that $1/month rental charge,
which a great many people disliked. Further, the cheapo phones
did look better, using pretty stylish. The Western Electric
sets were a 20-30 year old internal design.
I remember at yard sales the cheapo phones quickly became
available. If I asked the seller if they had any Western
Electric phones, the reply was always, "No, we're keeping those."
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362616 is a reply to message #362450] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:25 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
That continues today in retail. My drugstore now features a full
aisle dedicated to grocery items. The supermarket has a pharmacy
and bank and even sells some clothes. Walmart and Target have
big food sections.
In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
used to be the province of the cable companies. But the cable
companies now deliver phone and computer service.
In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
service and prices for the consumer, not better. The reliability
of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
that of the traditional telephone company. But the nice profits
has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
too to save money and make the profits, too. (The companies are
more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
consumers with good prices or good quality.)
I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
they'll cut off my classic landline. I'll be S.O.L.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362617 is a reply to message #362449] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:29 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:09 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Honeywell sold their informations systems division to Bull. Honeywell
>> however is now part of Allied Signal, which adopted the name and is
>> still a huge American company.
> Right, but no computers.
I think Honeywell was quite into computerized electronics for their
control system product line. I also suspect Allied was into computers
for control systems for its chemical plants.
Below is a link to a refinery control system from 60 years ago.
I don't know who makes that kind of control equipment today.
(To me, the stuff looks neat, but I know very little about it.)
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/trw/rw-300/Texaco_Port_Arthur_A pr59.pdf
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362618 is a reply to message #362455] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:32 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:30:22 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> AT&T also wrongly predicted that Western Electric would continue to
>> be profitable. It knew at the time [Alvin Von Auw] that customer
>> ownership of sets and wiring was no long cost-effective. However,
>> it probably could not have predicted that W/E's business model of
>> building equipment strong enough to withstand a nuke attack was no
>> longer working, and consumers wanted cheap equipment, even if it
>> meant frequent replacement. That is, consumers would rather have
>> a cheap crappy $10 phone replaced every year than a solid durable
>> $40 phone lasting for 40 years.
> 'zackly. The Economy depends on consumers being stupid.
True. But also, the Economy depends on consumers getting bored
and wanting new stuff for the sake of being new.
The Model T was an excellent car of its day. But consumers were
getting bored with it. The competition introduced flashier models.
Initially, Henry Ford refused to respond, but his family pushed
him to finally come out with the Model A.
GM's Alfred Sloan came up with the annual model year, as well as
the status climb of different models. Very successful marketing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362620 is a reply to message #362493] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 16:36 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
> They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
> telephone area, including long distance. They also were unwilling
> to provide telephone services needed by customers. Customers started
> to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled. Remember the
> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
> their names). ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
> Justice to start monopoly proceedings. The breakup had nothing
> to do with the computing business.
Sorry, but not true.
Imagine you own a luncheonette. You pay rent and taxes, and provide
your customers with restrooms and parking.
Someone sets up a pushcart selling hot dogs on the public sidewalk
in front of your place. He pays no taxes. Then, his customers use
your parking lot and your restrooms. You wouldn't like that at all.
The newcomer long distance companies wanted the revenues, but
didn't want the underlying expenses of being common carrier.
They expected AT&T to provide things for free or below cost,
which was not fair to AT&T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362627 is a reply to message #362460] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 17:01 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
> for voice as it was for SNA.
That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
transmission. Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
voice and data were different enough to require different line
treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
on landlines.
I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
microwave, which has latency, too.
Some of that is touched on in the following:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technica l/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362633 is a reply to message #362627] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 19:58 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission. Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
>
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
>
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technica l/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
mid-70s as Future System was imploded, my wife was co-author of AWP39
.... peer-to-peer networking architecture ... about the same time as SNA
.... which specified dumb terminal communication control system ... "not"
a system, "not" a network, and "not" an archiecture (i.e. fancy TCAM)
.... but because they used "network" (when it wasn't a network), AWP39
had to qualify with peer-to-peer.
htpt://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys
She was then in the gburg JES group and one of the catchers that turned
ASP into JES3 and co-author of JESUS (JES unified system) ... all the
stuff in JES2 & JES3 that the respective customers couldn't live w/o
.... then was con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of
"loosely-coupled" architecture (mainframe for "cluster) and did
"peer-coupled shared data architecture" ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#shareddata
She didn't remain long because 1) little uptake (except for IMS
hot-standby ... until sysplex and parallel sysplex much later) and 2)
constant battles with communication group trying to force her into using
SNA/VTAM for loosely-coupled operation.
SBS satellite communication provided much higher bandwidth with distance
insensitive charges (stationary orbit satellite footprint). SNA/VTAM had
window pacing implementation that would allow small (very limited)
number of small fixed-sized packets to be transmitted (waiting for
outstanding packet acknowledgements) and it also had maximum time-out if
it didn't get response. Double-hop 56kbit satellite link latency
exceeded both the maximum time-out case as well as the maximum window of
outstanding packets. Terrestrial T1 latency and speed would exceeded the
maxium window/number of outstanding packets ... at which point VTAM
stops transmitting until it gets ACKs back for earlier transmitted
packets (aka acknowledgements that previously transmitted packets had
been received), so even with terrestrial latency, majority of the T1
bandwidth was idle ... late 80s resulted in the 3237 spoofing CTCA
(local channel-to-channel with no latency) for T1 links ... still
couldn't get over 2mbits/sec aggregate. some old email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880130
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email880606
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#email881005
in these posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#75 We list every company in the world that has a mainframe computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#77 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)?
cira 1979 or 1980, there is inframous case where STL (west coast, now
silicon valley lab) and Hursely (Englan lab) datacenters were trying to
setup to use each others "off-shift" time for their respective 1st shift
throughput. They had double hop satellite 56kbit link (much, much
cheaper than terrestrial plus undersea cable) and initially tested with
VM370 VNET connection and everything worked fine. Then (MVS-bigot)
insisted that it be setup for MVS JES2 (SNA/VTAM) and it was completely
dead. The MVS-bigot tried to claim it was a bad link and VM370 VNET was
too dumb to realize it. The problem was the double-hop round trip
latency was greater than the MVS SNA/VTAM time-out value ... so wouldn't
establish a operational link.
HSDT even got a dedicated transponder to play with when SBS4
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/sbs-1.htm
STS-41-D (I was invited to VIP launch party at cape)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D
I think SBS4 was their first KU-band ... previous having been C-band
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band
hsdt posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
HSDT did dynamic rate-based pacing (rather than window-based ... aka max
number of outstanding packets waiting for acknowledgement). I was also
on the XTP technical advisory board ... past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp
and wrote up (dynammic) rate-based pacing for XTP specification
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/xtprate.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362635 is a reply to message #362616] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 20:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
>> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
>> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
>
> That continues today in retail. My drugstore now features a full
> aisle dedicated to grocery items. The supermarket has a pharmacy
> and bank and even sells some clothes. Walmart and Target have
> big food sections.
>
> In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
> used to be the province of the cable companies. But the cable
> companies now deliver phone and computer service.
>
> In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
> service and prices for the consumer, not better. The reliability
> of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
> that of the traditional telephone company. But the nice profits
> has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
> too to save money and make the profits, too. (The companies are
> more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
> consumers with good prices or good quality.)
>
>
> I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
> they'll cut off my classic landline. I'll be S.O.L.
>
I don't think they can, legally. I don't know why I keep my landline -
we're away now six months a year, and we've gotten used to using our cell
phones. Despite the terrible quality, there are a lot of advantages to each
of us having our own phone, and being able to take (and make) calls when
we're out.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362636 is a reply to message #362627] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 20:46 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>> for voice as it was for SNA.
>
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission. Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
>
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
>
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technica l/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
>
>
I expect that IBM was looking at bulk data transfer, where latency would
not be a significant problem. It would not have been good for interactive
use. Also, perhaps they expected Raleigh to fix the pacing problems, and
from what Lynn has said about them, I expect they wouldn't.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362646 is a reply to message #362636] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 21:44 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>>> for voice as it was for SNA.
>>
>> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
>> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
>> transmission. Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
>> voice and data were different enough to require different line
>> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
>> on landlines.
>>
>> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
>> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
>> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
>> microwave, which has latency, too.
>>
>> Some of that is touched on in the following:
>> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technica l/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
>
> I expect that IBM was looking at bulk data transfer, where latency would
> not be a significant problem. It would not have been good for interactive
> use. Also, perhaps they expected Raleigh to fix the pacing problems, and
> from what Lynn has said about them, I expect they wouldn't.
I think one of the steps IBM always goes through is when they
ask themselves, "Is this process to simple? Can our competitors
duplicate it?".
Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362648 is a reply to message #362627] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 22:40 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 05/02/2018 22:01, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 9:42:21 PM UTC-5, Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Supposedly SBS was going to make money off computer communications
>> ... but IBM's SNA was totally not suited for communications over
>> satellites .... SNA windowing/pacing didn't even handle T1/1.5mbits/sec
>> terrestrial latency ... so satelite latency really blew it out of the
>> water. SBS eventually fell back to trying to sell comsumer telephone
>> service over satellite ... round-trip latency over satellite was as bad
>> for voice as it was for SNA.
>
> That is surprising, since early on in satellite communications
> they discovered the problem with latency in both voice and data
> transmission. Indeed, by 1960, they knew the characteristics of
> voice and data were different enough to require different line
> treatments ("conditioning") to accommodate higher data speeds
> on landlines.
>
> I'm not sure when SNA was developed, but I would guess by that
> point overseas computer data transmission was already in place
> via cable, as well as transcontinental data transmission via
> microwave, which has latency, too.
>
> Some of that is touched on in the following:
> http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technica l/western-union-tech-review/21-4/p174.htm
>
I suspect the main problem was shortage of ram (especially when using
magnetic core). The system probably had a two packets in transmission. A
satellite needs buffering for 30-40 packets. With multi-hop delays can
easily exceed one second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362661 is a reply to message #362646] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 23:13 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.
Originally, CKD disk could trade off excess channel & I/O capacity in
the mid-60s (with sequential search operations) against scarce real
memory. A decade later, the trade-off had inverted ... disk, control
unit and channel capacity was becoming the scarce resources (bottleneck)
with real storage becoming increasingly abundant. Real storage was then
being used for file caching and index ... trying to alleviate the disk
i/o bottleneck ... but CKD searches were so ingrained in OS/360 that
they continued to be part of the design. Even tho no real CKD have been
built for decades ... OS/360 descendants still require CKD simulation
(on industry standard fixed block disks). past posts mentioning CKD,
multi-track searches, FBA, etc
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362662 is a reply to message #362648] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 23:20 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
> I suspect the main problem was shortage of ram (especially when using
> magnetic core). The system probably had a two packets in
> transmission. A satellite needs buffering for 30-40 packets. With
> multi-hop delays can easily exceed one second.
But number of packets that could be sent over terrestrial T1 link
would quickly exceed the "window" pacing limit ... before ACKs
started to be received ... so transmission would stop leaving
much of the capacity unused ... before ACKs started arriving to
reduce the number of outstanding packets.
We went to dynamic adaptive rate based pacing ... which could
aggressively use all the transmission capacity. There was a presentation
at 1988 (internet) IETF standards meeting about problems with window
based pacing because number of packets outstanding (un-acked) is
proportional to latency times bandwidth ... pointing out that
coast-to-coast terrestrial gigabit bandwidth has the same problems as
satellite latency at lower bandwidth.
past hsdt posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362663 is a reply to message #362635] |
Mon, 05 February 2018 23:20 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone was trying to get into everyone else's business, AT&T and Xerox
>>> into computers, IBM into copiers and communications (SBS and Rolm), Xerox
>>> into communications (Western Union), Kodak into copiers, etc.
>>
>> That continues today in retail. My drugstore now features a full
>> aisle dedicated to grocery items. The supermarket has a pharmacy
>> and bank and even sells some clothes. Walmart and Target have
>> big food sections.
>>
>> In telecom, the phone carriers now can deliver television, which
>> used to be the province of the cable companies. But the cable
>> companies now deliver phone and computer service.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, all this mishmash has resulted in WORSE
>> service and prices for the consumer, not better. The reliability
>> of the cable company's telephone service is terrible compared to
>> that of the traditional telephone company. But the nice profits
>> has forced the telephone company to reduce its service quality
>> too to save money and make the profits, too. (The companies are
>> more interested in pleasing Wall Street with juicy profits than
>> consumers with good prices or good quality.)
>>
>>
>> I'm scared that one of these days Verizon will notify me that
>> they'll cut off my classic landline. I'll be S.O.L.
>>
>
> I don't think they can, legally. I don't know why I keep my landline -
> we're away now six months a year, and we've gotten used to using our cell
> phones. Despite the terrible quality, there are a lot of advantages to each
> of us having our own phone, and being able to take (and make) calls when
> we're out.
That appears to be on a state-by-state basis.
https://www.moneytalksnews.com/landline-phone-disappearing-i n-these-20-states/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362674 is a reply to message #362661] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 08:10 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hence things like CKD disk, APPC, 3270, VSAM.
>
> Originally, CKD disk could trade off excess channel & I/O capacity in
> the mid-60s (with sequential search operations) against scarce real
> memory.
The IBM 1311 was the predecessor to the IBM 2311.
Same size cabinet, layout, disks.
The key difference was that the IBM 1311 could be
read and written with really simple commands.
On our 1440 we used a 500 character routine to do everything
we needed with the disk.
The IBM 2311 required an entire OS to use.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362675 is a reply to message #362645] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 08:48 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>>> "Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>
>>> Nonsense. US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>
>> +1
>
> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362680 is a reply to message #362620] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 09:58 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> They were also arrogant and tried to block competition in the
>> telephone area, including long distance. They also were unwilling
>> to provide telephone services needed by customers. Customers started
>> to go to other phone companies which ATT hassled. Remember the
>> two long distance companies which almost went bankrupt (I can't recall
>> their names). ATT shenanigans w.r.t. these companies caused
>> Justice to start monopoly proceedings. The breakup had nothing
>> to do with the computing business.
>
> Sorry, but not true.
>
> Imagine you own a luncheonette. You pay rent and taxes, and provide
> your customers with restrooms and parking.
>
> Someone sets up a pushcart selling hot dogs on the public sidewalk
> in front of your place. He pays no taxes. Then, his customers use
> your parking lot and your restrooms. You wouldn't like that at all.
>
> The newcomer long distance companies wanted the revenues, but
> didn't want the underlying expenses of being common carrier.
> They expected AT&T to provide things for free or below cost,
> which was not fair to AT&T.
Well, if I could recall the guy's name, I would refer you to
his book and interviews where he talked about ATT not providing
the new kinds of services their business customers wanted.
He was a VP or P of ATT.
In the early 70s DEC wanted an internal phone system. ATT told
Kotok that is couldn't be done and Kotok told them how it could
be done. Later Kotok designed DEC's internal phone system.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362681 is a reply to message #362675] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 09:58 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> >"Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
>>>> >were ludicrously high
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>
> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362683 is a reply to message #362681] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 10:47 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-02-06, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >"Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
>>>> > >were ludicrously high
>>>> >
>>>> > Nonsense. US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>> > manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>> > be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>
>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>
> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>
> /BAH
++1.
--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners (was: Xerox company sold) [message #362699 is a reply to message #362681] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 11:21 |
scott
Messages: 4239
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >"Reverse inversion". What's "spurious" about it? US corporate taxes
>>>> > >were ludicrously high
>>>> >
>>>> > Nonsense. US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>> > manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>> > be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>
>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>
> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and interest.
> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as income--
> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
Cite?
Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders rather
than invest in plant or people. There obviously will be exceptions by
either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
idiot-in-chief.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Important US technology companies sold to foreigners [message #362706 is a reply to message #362699] |
Tue, 06 February 2018 13:19 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to shareholders rather
> than invest in plant or people. There obviously will be exceptions by
> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
> idiot-in-chief.
Corporations Say Publicly They'll Pocket the Tax Cut, But Republicans
Aren't Listening
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/19/tax-bill-corporate-cut-s tock-buyback-republican/
Share buyback machine now in overdrive -- dropping a strong hint at
what CEOs plan to do with tax savings
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/share-buybacks-spike-dropp ing-a-strong-hint-at-what-ceos-plan-to-do-with-tax-savings-2 017-12-08
How Much Can Buybacks Rise on Tax Cuts? This Estimate Says 70%
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/how-much- can-buybacks-rise-on-tax-cuts-this-estimate-says-70
US firms will now focus on stock buybacks after tax cuts, David
Rubenstein says
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/us-firms-will-now-focus-on-s tock-buybacks-after-tax-cuts-david-rubenstein-says.html
trivia: what company did David Rubenstein found? hint: what company
did the former president of AMEX go to after leaving as CEO of IBM?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/10/barbarians-capit ol-private-equity-public-enemy/
Home Depot updates on tax bill impact
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3325245-home-depot-updates-tax -bill-impact
The Home Depot Awards Hourly Associates a One-Time Tax Reform Bonus;
Comments on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
https://seekingalpha.com/pr/17056151-home-depot-awards-hourl y-associates-one-time-tax-reform-bonus-comments-tax-cuts-job s-act-2017
Announces Accelerated Business Investment Plan and $15 Billion Share
Repurchase Authorization
http://ir.homedepot.com/news-releases/2017/12-06-2017-110035 522
Home Depot sets new $15 billion stock buyback program, affirms 2017 outlook
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-depot-sets-new-15-bil lion-stock-buyback-program-affirms-2017-outlook-2017-12-06
Home Depot sets $15 billion share buyback, investment plan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-home-depot-outlook-invest or-day/home-depot-sets-15-billion-share-buyback-investment-p lan-idUSKBN1E01D9
Home Depot Gives Investors a $15 Billion Christmas Gift
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/10/home-depot-gives-i nvestors-a-15-billion-christmas.aspx
Home Depot to Launch $15 Billion Share Buyback Program
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-depot-to-launch-15-billion -share-buyback-program-1512560836
also the Home Depot bonus announcements said "up to $1000" for
associates ... so the actual total bonus expense could be much less
than $385M ($1000 for 385K employees), Even at $385M is less than 3%
of $15B buyback
The Home Depot Awards Hourly Associates a One-Time Tax Reform Bonus;
Comments on Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
http://ir.homedepot.com/news-releases/2018/01-25-2018-130246 180
IBM Asian Revenues Crash, Adjusted Earnings Beat On Tax Rate Fudge; Debt
Rises 20% To Fund Stock Buybacks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-21/ibm-asian-revenues- crash-adjusted-earnings-beat-tax-rate-fudge-debt-rises-20-fu nd-st
New IBM Buyback Plan Is For Over 10 Percent Of Its Stock
http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2013/10/29/new-ibm-buyback -plan-is-for-over-10-percent-of-its-stock/
The company has represented that its dividends and share repurchases
have come to a total of over $159 billion since 2000.
quote attributable to Volcker from Confidence Men: Wall Street,
Washington, and the Education of a President
http://www.amazon.com/Confidence-Men-Washington-Education-eb ook/dp/B0089LOKKS
pg290:
Well, I said, 'The trouble with the United States recently is we spent
several decades not producing many civil engineers and producing a
huge number of financial engineers. And the result is s**tty bridges
and a s**tty financial system!'
.... snip ...
Bad Ideas; Reknowned economist James K. Galbraith, one of our expert
panelists, pulls no punches in talking about the damage wrought by
financial innovation
https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/june-2017/bad-ideas
The Economist's Take on Financial Innovation
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/satyajit-das-pravda-t he-economist%E2%80%99s-take-on-financial-innovation.html
The Real Reason Wages Have Stagnated: Our Economy Is Optimized For
Financialization
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-08/real-reason-wages-h ave-stagnated-our-economy-optimized-financialization
The Limping Middle Class
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-f ollow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html
slouching towards 3rd world country status and return of the robber
barons.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich -graphic.html?ref=sunday
How GE, GM, Coca-Cola And Kodak Put Shareholders Ahead Of Employees
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/06/29/how-ge- gm-coca-cola-kodak-put-shareholders-ahead-of-employees/
from here
http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
this has HD buying back 1/3rd of its stock over the last 10yrs ... not
quite as egregious as IBM
http://www.vuru.co/analysis/HD/dividendsBuybacks
Buyback binge is going strong, but here is why they are not the
solution
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/buyback-binge-is-going-stron g-but-here-is-why-they-are-not-the-solution.html
Home Depot is part of a select group of companies I call "buyback
monsters," companies that have bought back more than 25 percent of
their shares since 2000.
.... snip ...
Stockman, 80s budget director, takes credit for accelerating SS
contribution increases and (double) taxing SS benefits ... so the
money could be used for DOD ... Great Deformation
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Deformation-Corruption-Capitalis m-America/dp/1586489127/
pg464/loc9995-10000:
IBM was not the born-again growth machine trumpeted by the mob of Wall
Street momo traders. It was actually a stock buyback contraption on
steroids. During the five years ending in fiscal 2011, the company
spent a staggering $67 billion repurchasing its own shares, a figure
that was equal to 100 percent of its net income.
pg465/10014-17:
Total shareholder distributions, including dividends, amounted to $82
billion, or 122 percent, of net income over this five-year
period. Likewise, during the last five years IBM spent less on capital
investment than its depreciation and amortization charges, and also
shrank its constant dollar spending for research and development by
nearly 2 percent annually.
.... snip ...
IBM Asian Revenues Crash, Adjusted Earnings Beat On Tax Rate Fudge;
Debt Rises 20% To Fund Stock Buybacks
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-21/ibm-asian-revenues- crash-adjusted-earnings-beat-tax-rate-fudge-debt-rises-20-fu nd-st
New IBM Buyback Plan Is For Over 10 Percent Of Its Stock
http://247wallst.com/technology-3/2013/10/29/new-ibm-buyback -plan-is-for-over-10-percent-of-its-stock/
The company has represented that its dividends and share repurchases
have come to a total of over $159 billion since 2000.
.... snip ...
stock buyback posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#stock.buyback
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
