throbber
7/19/2016
`
`April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials Up First Transcontinental Video Call | WIRED
`
`
`
`ESUBSCRIBE
`
`DANIELA HERNANDEZ
`
`04.20.12 6:30 AM
`
`http://www.wired.com/2012/04/april-20-1964-picturephone-dials-up-first-transcontinental-video-call/
`
`1/9
`
`Dish
`Exhibit 1046, Page 1
`
`

`
`7/19/2016
`
`April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials Up First Transcontinental Video Call | WIRED
`
`
`
`ESUBSCRIBE
`
`1964: Bell’s Picturephone service dials up the world’s first videophone call, and
`the New York World Fair’s science consultant William L. Laurence gets some
`face time with Anaheim Bulletin managing editor Donald Shaffer at Disneyland.
`
`The video chat was part of a large public demonstration at the World’s Fair that
`included seven calling stations. New Yorkers could speak with Disneyland
`visitors at a similar set-up in the California theme park. “Long lines formed at
`either end as consumers clamored to see the telephone of the future,” wrote
`Steve Schnaars and Cliff Wymbs in a paper about the history of videophones.
`
`But the clamoring stopped soon thereafter, even though most users had good
`things to say about the Picturephone, which had a video camera, screen, a push-
`button phone, speakers and a power supply. The Picturephone even let users
`control whether the video feed was transmitted to the person they were
`calling. The sound and quality were good, and people generally liked seeing the
`person they were speaking to.
`
`But even company employees were not totally convinced. “We can’t hope to
`provide Picturephone service for the ordinary residence and business office in
`the near future but we are hopeful of offering the service in the next few
`months on a market trial basis,” an Bell engineer told the Star News in 1964.
`
`Commercial service started on June 25, 1964 at calling booths in New York City,
`Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Interest was lukewarm, at best. For starters,
`customers needed to schedule their allotted 15 minutes of screen time in
`advance, which made video chatting nearly as tedious a doctor’s appointment.
`Only three cities had access to the futuristic telephone, so its reach was pretty
`limited. Plus, it was also incredibly expensive. A 3-minute video call from New
`York to Washington, D.C. cost $16, or the equivalent of about $120 today.
`
`SING
`
`http://www.wired.com/2012/04/april-20-1964-picturephone-dials-up-first-transcontinental-video-call/
`
`2/9
`
`Dish
`Exhibit 1046, Page 2
`
`

`
`7/19/2016
`
`April 20, 1964: Picturephone Dials Up First Transcontinental Video Call | WIRED
`
`
`
`ESUBSCRIBE
`
`The following year, AT&T slashed prices almost 50 percent to encourage
`customers to make videophone calls. When that strategy failed, the company
`relocated the video booths to Bell-owned buildings. That didn’t help either.
`
`Finally in 1968, the company pulled up the white flag and admitted customers
`weren’t interested.
`
`Sources: Various.
`
`See also:
`
`Videophone Gets a Booster Shot
`
`Asus Announces World’s First Skype Video Phone
`
`Put Some Clothes On: Video Calling Just Got Easier
`
`#20TH CENTURY #COMMUNICATION #GADGETS
`
`http://www.wired.com/2012/04/april-20-1964-picturephone-dials-up-first-transcontinental-video-call/
`
`3/9
`
`Dish
`Exhibit 1046, Page 3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket