WI: Ma Bell Made Shaped the Internet

I came across an interesting article from someone who claimed to work on a project starting in the early 1980s that was essentially a scalable, firmware upgradable network dedicated to carrying digital data called ACS (Advanced Communication System) link to Part 1 of 8 can be found here. If you don't like surfing through hyperlinks then just go to https://talkingpointz.com/how-bell-missed-the-internet-1/ and to go to the next article just replace '1' with another number up to '8.'

Anyway, in summary Bell System wanted to beat ARPNET and other networks into cornering the digital commercial market at the time (fax, electronic mail, WAN and ect) while also finding a solution offload all of their existing clients who were clogging up their current switches with dedicated lines along with other special requests to carry digital services. They went about trying to create a foundation for a network a decade or more ahead of its time failing spectacularly and creating one of the most costly failures in telecom history barely anyone talks about in the process setting up AT&T (the original parent to the Bell System not its SBC acquired incarnation) to fade away post breakup.

Now what if the Bell System was able to scale back on those early ambitions, perhaps ditching network cards that didn't have dedicated boot ROMs that crashed often. Perhaps just worked on creating technologies in conjunction with Tymnet or some other existing digital network at the time in return for marketing and licensing it as their own (ala. DOS on the IBM PC). If this network was not divested due to antitrust as AT&T can argue that this dedicated system not predicated on POTs like their long distance service how would you imagine AT&T and this system play in shaping the internet until this day?
 
Last edited:
Upon further research I found AT&T offers an existing service called ACS to governments. I do not think its related to aforementioned project as it stands for Audio Conferencing Service and they probably just wanted a way to formally trademark the acronym. However, it was co-developed with a company called Applied Communication Sciences, recently renamed Vencore Labs, who's HQ is located in Basking Ridge NJ which is not too far from the Holmdel complex where the aforementioned Bell System project was being done. Here is some PR about it. I wonder if this project has escaped the proof of concept phase.

Regardless, considering this is designed to work on a quick deployable terabyte network does make me think how the internet would have develop if a telecom or few had vertical assets to develop it sooner. Which aspects would be more quickly developed and which services would essentially suffer.
 
Last edited:
Given how AT&T fought tooth and nail against third party modems, maxing out at 1200 baud, iirc, I severely doubt there would BE an internet in any recognizable form if they kept control.

Yes, there'd be some data backbone, but it would be marketed and priced for Fortune 500 companies and the Government.
 
Given how AT&T fought tooth and nail against third party modems, maxing out at 1200 baud, iirc, I severely doubt there would BE an internet in any recognizable form if they kept control.

Yes, there'd be some data backbone, but it would be marketed and priced for Fortune 500 companies and the Government.

While that is true one cannot say for certain that AT&T would completely corner the digital network market exactly like they did with POTs in spite all of their muscle. While I do agree that AT&T at first would be reluctant to offer commercial services catering to small businesses and individuals over their network. Even initial competition may force them to adapt. Besides ARPNET, you already had other established commercial networks such as Tymnet and especially Telenet which was backed by Sprint and GTE, AT&T's main competitors at the time. By the late 1980s besides ARPNET Telenet had a service called PC Pursuit which gave users access to message boards among other services. So even if AT&T would not offer these services they could still be dragged in kicking and screaming much like they were with their Hobbit PCs as a last ditch effort to keep their CRISP architecture relevant.

In other words, if AT&T and others can compete against or if somehow HTML gets butterflied away. I could foresee multiple networks with incompatible competing standards much like the early part of the PC business. Whether such a situation would create healthy, whole and most importantly seemingly global connected Internet with a common World Wide Web would be in doubt. But such a situation could offer innovations in hardware and software that would otherwise not show up for years to come. If you have any different ideas please feel free to answer as that is the premise of why I created this thread.
 
Last edited:
Worst case scenario for the net means we have a much more robust local retail establishment, & perhaps the higher prices?

But would that be offset by any benefits in network infrastructure such as more ubiquitous broadband in the US earlier by having a major telecom company playing a more active role in shaping the early internet? If everything went OTL with the breakup of the Bell System I can't see AT&T completely dominating over the likes of MCI, Sprint and any early ISPs and network of the era. It would be interesting to note this could impact their ability to push their Video Phones harder.

Another change to AT&T that can happen is due to the demand, revenue and allure of gaining capital and grants to keep their network and digital services on the cutting edge AT&T could be inclined to holding their share of former Bell Labs holdings by not forming then spinning it off as Lucent Technologies. Then again such moves would be more difficult in a political and financial climate that encouraged more deregulation and asset stripping.
 
Last edited:
Top