A Tale of Business Disruption in Document Communications

In the middle of the 1990s, the Internet and its associated IP protocols were like a huge wave that was off the shore of the business world, but poised to come in and cause massive disruption. At that time, I ran a consulting business for telecom clients (Human Communications) and was active on several fronts to be proactive on the topic.  In the TR-29 fax standards committee, we started work on how fax communications could take place over the Internet. A small group began work on an initiative called Group 5 Messaging, whose goal was to take the best ideas of fax, email and telex and spin up the next generation of business communications. In late 1996, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) held an informal Birds of a Feather (BOF) on Internet Fax.  In meetings of Study Group 8 of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), discussions began on how to extend fax protocols to work over the Internet or on private IP networks.

On the business side, fax was very hot and even very small businesses such as pizza parlors had purchased fax machines. Corporations had been adopting fax over Local Area Networks, and companies like Rightfax, Omtool, Optus and Biscom had  very healthy businesses selling into this space. Brooktrout Technology had introduced multi-channel fax boards and drivers for Windows NT, and had built up market momentum that enabled the company to go public. But all of this fax technology was based on sending faxes over circuit-switched networks. What would be the impact of the Internet and its technology on fax and business communications?

By 1999, the business communications landscape had changed dramatically. On the standards front, the IETF had created several standards for providing a fax services via email and the ITU had referenced these standards in the T.37 standard. The ITU had also independently created a new T.38 standard which essentially extended the T.30 Group 3 fax protocol into the IP packet world. The Group 5 initiative had lost momentum, as the fax and other communications players lined up to support the new IP-based standards from the IETF and ITU which appeared to solve the problem of how to send faxes over IP.  Related standards work continued and I was active in making sure that the new T.38 fax protocol was supported under both the current H.323 call control and under the new SIP and Megaco (later H.248) protocols.

On the business side, fax was still doing well, but now had new competition. The advent of the World Wide Web had totally wiped out the Fax on Demand business that had done well in the early Nineties. Various pundits were saying that email was the future of business communications and that new portable document formats like the PDF from Adobe would be used in place of fax.  Curiously, the email experts who participated in the IETF Internet Fax work weren’t so sure. Fax had business quality of service elements which were hard to duplicate in email — notably instant confirmation of delivery at the end of a session, negotiations between the endpoints on what document formats were acceptable and the legal status of fax, where fax messages over the circuit network were accepted as legal documents for business purposes.  The IETF work group tried to upgrade email protocols to address the technical elements, but the work was hard and the path to adoption slow.

I also shifted my career and suspended my consulting business to join Brooktrout Technology and help them participate in the new Voice over IP business. But just before I left my business, I advised my fax clients and newsletter subscribers to get diversified and not put all of their eggs in the fax communications basket.  I saw both challenges and opportunities ahead. There had been a large number of new startups that had attempted to ride IP fax to success in the late Nineties, but most of them crashed and burned within a couple of years. E-Fax had introduced “free” IP fax mailboxes and that approach was quickly emulated by competitors, but the business model for “free” wasn’t obvious.  I’d helped form a new industry association called the Internet Fax and Business Communications Association in early 1999, but we had difficulty getting fax and other communications industry vendors to sign on. The times were turbulent and the way forward was less than obvious.

In my next post, I’ll talk about how the trends toward IP Fax and its communications competitors played out and which related business communications issues still need to be addressed.

If your organization has participated in the evolution of fax or other business communications during this evolution from the circuit-switched phone network to IP, please feel free to comment. If you’d like to explore strategies on how to evolve your application solutions or other communications products and services in this rapidly changing business environment, you can reach me on LinkedIn or on our web site.

Advertisements

Reshaping Enterprise Communications: A Tale of Two Companies

In my last few posts, I’ve described several factors which have encouraged communications solution providers to transition away from hardware and focus on software-based application solutions.

Let’s consider two companies and how they adjusted the path of their technical and business models to address these directions. Avaya is an example of a company whose solutions had a substantial amount of proprietary hardware around the time they split off from Lucent in the year 2000. Avaya had a leading market share in multiple markets targeted to enterprises, including PBXs, which provided telephone infrastructure for enterprises, and Call Centers, which used Avaya components to meet customer needs for highly scalable inbound and outbound communications. But the advent of IP-based technology and new protocols such as SIP began to change all of that. The mantra of IP-based communications was that voice was just another application that ran on an IP stack. This massive technical change was a major challenge for Avaya, since they’d built their business based on selling PBX and call center solutions based on their own hardware, but the cost of sustaining this business model was high. So starting around 2002, they executed a pivot to adjust to the new situation. First, they introduced new IP-based versions of their PBX technology ranging from IP phones to an IP-based PBX and a suite called IP Office for small to medium sized businesses. In parallel, they told potential partners that they wanted to move out of the hardware business and focus on value provided by their software. Third, they created a partner program, the Avaya DeveloperConnection program (later shortened to DevConnect), and encouraged partners to either build on or connect to Avaya solutions. As a result, Avaya was able to cultivate relationships with hardware appliance companies for products like media gateways and focus more on building out their application software. The DevConnect program also fit well with Avaya’s increased role as an integrator. Solutions for customers could be built using not only Avaya technology, but also DevConnect certified products. So Avaya had an approach to building out software-based solutions using IP, but they also had a large installed-base of hardware-based solutions, so they were not as nimble as some of their competitors.

The advent of SIP helped to encourage new market entrants into the communications software space. A prominent example was Microsoft. Starting around 2007, Microsoft introduced it’s new communication solution, Office Communication Server 2007 or OCS.  OCS used SIP as its backbone protocol and touted the ability for enterprises to eliminate the cost of a PBX and replace it by software running on Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) servers. Enterprises still needed to connect to the telephone networks run by service providers, which were heavily based on circuit-switched technologies, so Microsoft started its own partner and certification program to qualify 3rd party products such as media gateways. Microsoft also had a lot of marketing muscle, since their applications such as Microsoft Office were widely used within enterprises, so they had a ready audience among the information technology managers at customers. In 2010, Microsoft -re-branded their offer and called it Microsoft Lync. Microsoft quickly became a big player in the new Unified Communications market and began to take market share away from traditional PBX vendors such as Avaya. Microsoft also continued to be aggressive in cultivating relationships with 3rd party hardware partners, who added support for Lync compatible IP phones and newer IP-based products such as Session Border Controllers (SBCs). Microsoft has since re-branded Lync to be Skype for Business, but the underlying technology and business model is an evolution of Lync.

The market battle for leadership in communications for enterprises continues, but the momentum has shifted heavily to software-based solutions and most hardware components are provided by other vendors. One exception to this direction is Cisco. They have maintained a strong presence in the hardware side of communications by virtue of their leading market position in routers and have incorporated additional functions such as media gateways and SBCs upon their routers. However, Cisco also has built their own software-based Unified Communications suites and Contact Center solutions, so they use the software-based applications model, but pair it up with Cisco network components to create their solutions.

In summary, the advent of SIP is one of several factors which have radically changed the landscape for communications solutions. In this post, we’ve considered how Avaya and Microsoft built their business strategies based on the strong move to IP-based software solutions over the last decade. In my next post, I’ll talk about another important technology development, virtualization, which is in the process of re-shaping how both application software and communications infrastructure products are being developed and brought to market today.

If you participated in the evolution described here, please feel free to weigh in with your comments. If you’d like to explore strategies on how to evolve your application solutions or other communications products, you can reach me on LinkedIn.

 

How IP Media Changed the Voice Business

This post is about a critical technical development in the history of Voice over IP which had a wide-reaching impact on the development of voice and related communications solutions. I’m referring to IP media, which was introduced early in the 2000s and has been ramping up every since.

In my last two posts, we discussed two important technologies which were instrumental in the early and middle years of voice-based solutions. The first post covered the introduction of voice boards and the second post reviewed the impact of media gateways on voice solutions.

On the business side, the introduction of media gateways provided a stepping stone which encouraged the pioneers of Voice over IP and other voice solution providers to decide where they offered the most strategic value to their customers.  In particular, should they focus on applications or upon enabling technology which could either complement applications or be used to build underlying infrastructure. The introduction of IP media pushed companies further down this decision path.

Two directions emerged. Several manufacturers of voice boards began to kick the tires on creating software-based versions of their voice boards. In the post on voice boards, we noted how control of voice and media functions was controlled using Application Program Interfaces (APIs) and that private APIs tied to particular vendor product families gained much more market traction than attempts at standards-based APIs. Hence, an early product in the space, Host Based Media Processing (HMP) from Dialogic®, offered the value proposition of being software-based, but was still controlled using the same set of APIs that were used with Dialogic voice boards. In parallel, another movement emerged. Two startup companies, Snowshore and Convedia, introduced a new category of product called the Media Server. In the last post, I mentioned how the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) started to gain traction early in the 2000s. The Media Server concept took SIP as a starting point and added the ability to manipulate media by using a markup language, which was typically based on the  Extensible Markup Language (XML) recently standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The implications were profound, both on the technical and business sides, but like many new innovations, the transition to using this new approach took many years to develop. For example, by the time Media Servers truly hit the mainstream, the two originating companies had both been acquired by larger organizations who were able to make the needed capital investment to build sustainable businesses for media servers.

Of the two approaches, IP Media controlled by APIs essentially was an incremental development and IP Media managed by Media Servers introduced radical change. Let’s consider why this was the case. IP Media controlled by APIs retained the API-based model for control of media. For existing voice application developers, this was great.  They could start the transition away from including voice board hardware in their solutions and thus vastly simplify their go-to-market strategies. As a result, many voice application developers now raised the flag and said they were now out of the hardware business and their solutions were totally software-based. In reality, this typically meant their application software would run on industry standard Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) PCs or servers using Intel or compatible CPUs such as those offered by AMD. But by using IP Media, the solution providers could skip the step of adding voice boards to their computer-based solutions and eliminate all of the complications of integrating 3rd party hardware. They did have to be careful to have enough CPU horsepower to run both their applications and IP media software, but it represented a major step forward. Voice and multi-media application solutions had now become a separate business in the Voice over IP market.

I mentioned that the introduction of the IP-based Media Server was a more radical step. So, I’ll review a few points to back up that assertion.

  1. The need to have a private API controlled by a single vendor went away.  The new concept of “the protocol is the API” replaced the programmatic approaches which had required developers to use programming languages such as C, C++ or Java for media operations. Instead, simple operations like playing back voice prompts or collecting digits could be accomplished using the combination of SIP and an XML-based markup language, thus eliminating the need for a programmatic language to carry out these operations.
  2. The application developer could focus clearly on making their applications best-of-breed and partner with media server vendors, who would focus on creating world-class voice and multimedia solutions.
  3. The application developers no longer needed to include media processing in their applications at all, thus reducing the CPU cycles needed for those media operations, However, the application developers did need to partner closely with the media server vendors and ensure their SIP + XML commands would work correctly when issued over an IP network to the paired media server.
  4. The concepts of the standalone application server and the standalone media server got included in the new IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) architecture, which was being standardized by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) as a linchpin for the next generation of mobile networks.

So the move toward IP Media was a major step forward for the Voice over IP industry and encouraged further market segmentation. For the first time, companies could specialize in applications and include the ability to support voice, tones and other multimedia, and do all of this in software which would run on industry standard COTS servers. In turn, hardware component and appliance vendors were able to focus on more distinct market segments where they could utilize either embedded solutions technology or start making the move toward running  media on COTS servers.

In my next post, I’ll talk more about how the business models for voice and unified communications solutions have evolved due to the more wide spread use of server and appliance based technology for applications, signaling and media.

Impact of Media Gateways on Voice Solutions

This is the latest in a series of posts on how voice development has been moving from hardware to software centered models. In my last post, we reviewed the classic approach to developing voice-centered solutions, which typically utilized voice boards. In this post, I’ll review how media gateways helped change the model.

In the classic voice model, the voice board often was used both for voice processing and to connect to a phone network, which might be either digital or analog. When Voice over IP (VoIP) began to emerge, new options became available for voice solutions. In the early days of VoIP, the H.323 stack was used to connect to IP networks, but the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) got some crucial support in the 2000-2001 time frame from Microsoft and the Third Generation Partnership Program (3GPP), the leading standards organization for mobile phone networks. Within a few years, voice developers began to add SIP to their development capabilities. This had multiple implications.

Let’s look at some business side drivers. After the dot com crash and the related “Telecom Downturn,” which decimated the ranks of engineering staffs of the large vendors known as The Equipment Manufacturers (TEMs), these companies were looking for ways to reduce the amount of hardware in their solutions. In the classic voice solution, the voice board processed media and also connected to the circuit-switched networks. When SIP became popular, many of the TEMs started saying they wanted to move away from the hardware business. Some of these companies started processing media as part of their voice applications and others continued to rely upon voice boards for this processing.  In either case, if they outsourced the connection to the network to another box, they could reduce the number of hardware dependent elements in their solution and simplify the process of building and shipping their solutions.

Enter the Media Gateway. As the application developer included SIP in their solutions, they could connect to a media gateway via SIP and then let the media gateway take over the role of connecting to the existing circuit-switched network. This had been possible before SIP with H.323, but SIP offered much more flexibility for doing the complex call processing needed by the voice developers and continued to gain market momentum. In turn, various hardware companies started building purpose-built media gateway appliances to connect to digital or analog networks. The gateways supported the most common networks such as ISDN first, but eventually some gateways got more sophisticated and added Signaling System #7 (SS7) support as well.  This decomposition  of the voice solution offered benefits for both types of vendors. The solution vendors could start their move away from hardware and focus more on software, whereas the media gateway vendors were able to specialize in connections between SIP and the circuit-switched networks. Each type of company could specialize in their area of expertise and the solutions providers could add value to their solutions by buying best-of-breed media gateways.  Since the network protocols were standards-based,  the gateways needed to have robust standard protocol implementations and this helped create a competitive market for media gateways.

As a result, solution developers took another step along the path of reducing their dependency on embedded hardware, since they could now outsource the network connection to a media gateway.  In the next post, I’ll talk about developments in IP-based media which continued the evolution toward software-based voice applications.

If you participated in the evolution described here, please feel free to weigh in with your comments. If you’d like to explore strategies on how to evolve your company’s solutions to meet customer needs, you can reach me on LinkedIn.

Voice Development Models: A Journey Begins

During the past three years, I had product management responsibilities for products which covered the spectrum from hardware-centered to software-centered development.  In telecom, there’s been an evolution in development models as solution providers have taken a series of steps to gradually move away from hardware.  However, like many technical trends, there is a long tail as the older technology goes away only gradually.  In this post and others to follow, I’ll review models for voice applications at a high level and consider some steps along the way which have led to the software-oriented nirvana sought by many solution providers.

In the Nineties, voice development was often done with PCs at the center and embedded board hardware was an important component. The CPUs of the PCs ranged from models like the 386 on up to Pentium. Voice applications entailed lots of media processing, so voice boards with lots of Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) were critical to get scalable applications.  The DSPs did all of the heavy lifting for the media and the CPU of the PC was freed up to support the application side for solutions such as call centers, interactive voice retrieval and fax on demand.  Many of the applications developed during this time are still being used, though the actual PCs or servers may have been replaced and there may also have been some upgrades on the voice board hardware. Nonetheless, thousands of voice boards are still being sold to support these applications. On the software side, there were efforts to create industry standard Application Program Interfaces (APIs) such as S.100 from the Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum (ECTF) and T.611 from the International Telecommunications Union, but most of the boards were controlled using private APIs supplied by the board vendors.

In the model above, the boards and applications were all designed to work over the circuit-switched telephone network, which ranged from analog services (POTS or Plain Old Telephone Service) to digital approaches which began with the Integrated Systems Digital Network (ISDN) and continued with the Signaling System 7 (SS7) network overlay.  The phone companies worldwide assumed that these circuit-switched networks with Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) and the related seven layer Open Systems Interconnect (OSI) models would be the focus going forward, replacing analog networks, and would perhaps be supplemented by new OSI stacks such as the Asynchronous Transport Method (ATM).

But a revolution had already begun as alternative flatter telecom stacks based on the upstart Internet Protocol  (IP) protocols were being used both for existing applications such as email and new applications like the Worldwide Web. In the telecom industry, a few companies began to explore running voice over IP networks, thus creating a new Voice over IP (VoIP) technical and business model for phone networks.  In the early days (from the late Nineties to the early 2000s), VoIP was mainly used to bypass existing long distance networks to reduce long distance charges, but the range of applications for IP soon began to expand.

At first, this looked like a great opportunity for the voice board manufacturers.  Now, they could add IP support to their boards or potentially just give software developers access to Ethernet ports on PC. An important new board category was created: the media gateway. These early media gateway boards allowed developers to use the existing circuit networks for most of their connections, but also tap into new IP networks where they existed.  Continuing on the same API trends, board vendors extended their private APIs to support IP in addition to TDM.  So now solution developers could run their solutions over both existing TDM and new IP networks, using these new hybrid boards which often could support voice, fax and tones.

In my next post, I’ll talk about how media gateways helped to kick off a new voice development model which accelerated the separation between software and hardware for voice and the new application category which became Unified Communications.

If you participated in the evolution described here, please feel free to weigh in with your comments.  If you’d like to explore strategies on how to evolve your solutions, you can reach me on LinkedIn.

Faxed: A Book Review – Ruminations

In my last post, I talked about the book written by historian and professor Jonathan Coopersmith entitled Faxed – The Rise and Fall of the Fax Machine.  I left off as fax entered the late Eighties and became wildly popular.  As Coopersmith recounts, this confounded the experts, who were expecting electronic messaging, videotext or a variety of other technologies to supersede fax.

In my own work life, I’d worked for a fax company for a decade by then, but didn’t get close to the technology until I joined Product Line Management and wrote the business case for a fax modem product.  Like many companies, Fujitsu sold fax machines, but we also started developing computer-based products.  Around 1989, we released the dexNet 200 fax modem and accompanying software called PC 210 which ran on IBM compatible computers.  A year later, my boss sent me to the TR-29 fax standards committee and I discovered that this group was writing standards that would have a big impact on most companies in the wild west activity known as computer fax.  I also joined an upstart industry group, which became the International Computer Fax Association (ICFA) and started reporting to them on the standards being developed at TR-29.  Fax was hot, but Fujitsu was focused on its mainframe computer business and shut down the US-based business called Fujitsu Imaging Systems of America (FISA) that employed me.  After a month of soul searching, I decided to start a consulting business called Human Communications which advised clients on fax and related technologies.  The ICFA was one of my first clients and I continued to attend TR-29 and gradually built up a client list among fax machine and computer fax companies.

IMG_1010 - Faxed - cropped

By late 1993, the business was going well and that’s when I originally met Jonathan Coopersmith. In his book, he talks about this period as being the heyday of fax. Fax did extremely well in the US, as pizza parlors installed fax machines and offices of every size had one. But it became even more popular in Japan. The Japanese fax manufacturers competed fiercely, but also cooperated to ensure interworking between their machines.  I started attending the meetings of ITU-T Study Group 8 in starting around this time and we were building the new extensions to the very popular Group 3 fax standard.  There was a newer digital standard called Group IV, but Group 3 took on its best attributes and basically shut Group IV out of the market.

In the mid-Nineties, the Internet and the World Wide Web exploded and began a massive transformation in the way the world communicated.  In the fax community, it was obvious to many of us that the Internet would have a huge impact, so we started a very aggressive effort to write Fax over IP standards.  Dave Crocker, a co-author of the standard for electronic mail in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), came to TR-29 and asked for volunteers to begin the work of Internet Fax in the IETF.  A similar effort began in the ITU.  The work proceeded from ground zero to completed standards by 1998, which was unusually fast for standards groups.

I left the fax consulting business in late 1999 and joined the Voice over IP industry.  By then, there were already signs that fax would lose its dominance. The World Wide Web totally took over the information access role that had been played by Fax on Demand.  The chip companies stopped focusing on fax and by the time a new version of the T.38 standard was written in 2004 to accommodate the faster V.34 modem speeds for fax over IP, the VoIP chips didn’t support it.

In Japan, as Coopersmith explains, fax had been even more dominant than in the US.  The visual aspects of Japanese characters such as kanji meant that computer keyboards were much slower to develop in Japan than in the US market.  By the time I met Jonathan again in 2004, fax had begun its next move and had become more of a niche business both in the US and in Japan.  It still sells well in some market segments and there has been a bit of a renaissance as the T.38 fax standard has kicked in to accompany Voice over IP, but the arc of technological history is now in the long tail phase for fax.

Fax is a classic example of a technology that had many false starts — the first half of the book shows just how many there were — but eventually caught fire as all of the pieces came together for massive success. This book offers some good context on all of this and has many useful lessons learned for technologists. Great technology is never enough by itself, but when the right combination of market needs and technology come together, amazing things can happen. Faxed, the book, tells that story for fax.

 

 

Faxed: A Book Review – Part 1

In 1993, I visited the city of San Antonio to participate in a speaking engagement on fax at a conference on electronic commerce.  While there, I had dinner with a professor from the University of Texas A & M named Jonathan Coopersmith.  We had an engaging conversation about facsimile technology and he told me that he was writing a history on the subject.  The fax business was in full ferment at the time and I’d been busy during the past several years working on the TR-29 fax committee, which prepared US fax standards and also submitted contributions to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the group which defined standards for fax and other telecom technologies.

Fast forward about ten years.  Jonathan visited Needham, Massachusetts to interview the executives of Brooktrout Technology and discovered that I also worked at the company. He invited me to share lunch with him and we talked about how much fax had changed in the prior ten years, going from the world’s hottest communications technology to one of many ways of communicating in a world now dominated by Internet based tech.  He also said that yes, he was still working on the book, but had taken out time to raise his family and he’d been sidetracked on that long running project.  We continued to exchange messages over the next several years, notably when he visited Japan to interview sources over there in person.  He sent me a draft of a chapter on computer fax and fax during the Nineties around 2010 or so and I offered some feedback.

In 2015, Jonathan got in touch.  Great news.  The book was done and published.  The result is called Faxed: The Rise and Fall of the Fax Machine.  He sent me a copy and I recently sat down and read it over the period of a few weeks. Jonathan’s area of expertise is as an historian specializing in the history of technology.  He discovered fax as a user, finding the fax machine was a technology that even his mother could use effectively.  He’d also discovered that the books on fax were not written from an historical perspective, so he decided to write one.

IMG_1010 - Faxed - cropped

Fax has a fascinating history.  It was invented in 1843 by Alexander Bain, a Scottish physicist, during the era when the telegraph was the king of communications technology.  Bain was one of several notable figures in the early days of fax; as Coopersmith notes, the idea attracted a diverse group of inventors who worked not only on fax, but also on improvements to the telegraph.  I’d been aware of Bain, but Coopersmith digs in and finds many others who advanced fax in one way or another during its first seventy years.  The technology was promising, but difficult, involving aspects of mechanics, optics and electronic synchronization which tended to exceed the state of the art at the time.  The early markets for fax sprung up around World War I and its aftermath, as newspapers began to supplement written words with photographs transferred via fax and competitive technologies.

As Coopersmith recounts, fax moved forward in fits and starts and consumed a great deal of financial capital in the process, but did not actually result in a successful commercial market until the Sixties, when new technologies such as the photocopier from Xerox made it easier for faxed documents to be copied and exchanged within businesses and other organizations.  Even in this period, there was a lack of standards and the main markets were the US and Japan.  Xerox appeared to have all of the pieces to dominate the market, but invested elsewhere and other startups began to compete for the burgeoning market of fax machines targeted to offices.

Two developments changed the landscape in a dramatic way.  First, the Carterphone decision forced AT&T to allow 3rd party devices to connect to the phone network and opened the way to telecom technology to advance outside of the monopolistic Bell system.  Coopersmith notes that NTT was forced to open its network in Japan just a few years later, which also encouraged a number of companies in Japan to jump into fax.  The second development was the hard set of compromises that resulted in the first well accepted fax standard, Group 3, which was agreed within the International Consultative Committee on  Telegraphy and Telephony (aka CCITT) in 1980.  With the advent of Group 3, the factories in Japan were able to standardize mass production of fax machines and Japan became the supplier of fax machines for the world.

In the late Eighties, the sub-$1000 fax machine debuted and the fax explosion was in full motion.  Around this time, a court in New York State accepted that fax documents could be used in legal proceedings and fax gained a stature which pushed other technologies like Telex aside.

During this period, I worked for Fujitsu Imaging Systems of America (FISA) and was a product line manager for a new technology called computer fax modems.  FISA had bought one of the early fax success stories from the Sixties, Graphic Sciences, from Burroughs Corporation in 1986.  This is where my story begins to intertwine with the fax history which Coopersmith recounts.  I’ll continue this review in my next post.