roundtable: Re: What price for Bellcore or how do you value basic RandD

roundtable: Re: What price for Bellcore or how do you value basic R&D

Re: What price for Bellcore or how do you value basic R&D

Ed Frankenberry (ezf@osf.org)
Thu, 25 May 1995 08:59:31 -0400 

Message-Id: <199505251259.IAA17010@postman.osf.org>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Re: What price for Bellcore or how do you value basic R&D
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 May 1995 21:45:57 EDT."
             <9505241814.AA26174@a.cni.org> 
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 08:59:31 -0400
From: Ed Frankenberry <ezf@osf.org>


Curtis writes:
> 
> When AT&T was a monopoly Bellcore (then Bell Labs) was the crown of
> the nation.

Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) was cleaved from Bell Labs as 
part of the divestiture.  A smaller Bell Labs remained with AT&T while 
Bellcore was spun off for the RBOCs.


> It is a classic problem to value basic science.

This has been problematic for corporations given the increasingly
competitive business climate that's developed since the early 80's.
As a result, much of the focus at Bell Labs has shifted from basic to
applied research.  These pressures aren't unique to post-divestiture 
AT&T, however (e.g. similar changes have occurred at IBM Research).


> But now we have the bizarre situation of trying to sell a "company" 
> that does science and basic R&D!

There is still a need for a coordinating organization like Bellcore.
It's played a critical role in NPA/area-code planning and developing
national ISDN standards, just to mention two examples.  The 
dissatisfaction with Bellcore probably stems more from the conflicting 
goals of the various RBOCs and the way Bellcore is currently organized 
and managed.

     Ed Frankenberry
     <ezf@osf.org>

[CNI Home Page]