Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - Tech-Backed CS Teachers Association Pivots to AI Literacy, Scores $11M NSF Grant

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: On Thursday, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) announced an $11 million award to the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) in furtherance of the Trump administration's executive order on Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth that directed federal agencies to promote AI literacy. The award will launch Artificial Intelligence Professional Development (PD) Weeks: CS Foundations for Creating with AI, a multistate initiative that will prepare thousands of K-12 educators to teach foundational computer science (CS) and AI at scale. "Artificial Intelligence is transforming every sector of our economy, and American students must be prepared not just to use AI, but to understand it and create with it," explained the NSF's Brian Stone. "We are thinking beyond AI towards what the White House calls the 'Future of Intelligence.'"

CSTA joined fellow tech-backed nonprofit Code.org last December to pivot the nation's K-12 schoolchildren from coding to AI literacy during CS Education Week. Replacing CSEdWeek's Hour of Code event was a new Hour of AI event, a move called for and backed by Microsoft — that featured AI literacy tutorials from Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, all of whom are Strategic CSTA Partners and Code.org Lifetime Supporters.

"Computer science teachers will continue to be leaders in preparing students for an AI-enabled future," said CSTA Executive Director Jake Baskin in a LinkedIn post. "Over the next two years, this initiative will allow us to equip thousands of K-12 educators nationwide with the knowledge and instructional strategies needed to teach foundational CS and AI at scale. On the heels of last year's announcement of the AI education Executive Order, Baskin (formerly Director of State Government Affairs at Code.org) joined the nation's tech leaders in signing a letter of support that appeared in a New York Times ad to kick off a new Code.org led campaign to make CS and AI a graduation requirement for all students.

Submission + - CS Course-Resisting NOLA Catholic High School Raises Ire of Tech-Backed Code.org

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In its March 11th meeting, the Code.org Advocacy Coalition — whose members include Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft — raised concerns about the filing of Louisiana House Bill 787, which aims to remove a new requirement for all high school students — public and private — to complete a computer science course to continue to be eligible for Louisiana TOPS scholarships. Public school students are subject to a new Code.org-backed CS course high school graduation requirement, but that requirement does not apply to private school students.

"So, to try to explain Louisiana's situation," Code.org told Coalition members (video, 16:08), "is that they have two sections of code that are basically applicable to this. One is their strict graduation requirements. It says every student has to have these courses before they graduate. That's what most states have. It only applies to public schools. They have a completely different section of code that is about their TOPS scholarship program, their state provided scholarship program. And what the DOE has tried to do for several years now is tried to have those two things mirrored. So, when we wrote the CSGRAD requirement in Louisiana, those two things were mirrored. We had to actually fix it, but they ended up being mirrored. What the problem, or what has the impetus for this legislation being filed is that TOPS applies to any student in the state of Louisiana wanting state graduation or state college funds. So, that includes private school students, includes Catholic school students, etc. So, though the straight graduation requirement does not apply to them, if they want state scholarship funding, they have to meet everything that the state says because the two sections of code are mirrored. This legislation would remove the computer science from the TOPS requirement, so the state scholarship money."

And while even Code.org agreed this seems like a reasonable ask, they went on to explain why this bill — which was blamed on a New Orleans Catholic High School in a slide — must be defeated due to fears that it may impact the Coalition's mission. From the transcript: "And you say, okay, well that's not a huge deal. That's how most of our states are that we have a graduation requirement for all public schools. It doesn't apply to private schools. I agree on the face. The problem goes back to that the DOE does like for those two things to be mirrored. And our fear is that if this legislation starts having legs and gets close to the finish line that DOE or LOSA and I have no indication that they would do this, but just knowing that they want the two mirrored, they may say, well, if you're going to remove it from TOPS, remove it from graduation requirement. I hope they wouldn't, but that is unfortunately a reality we might have to face. [...] We're going to continue trying to fight it. And I want to give Jamie and the DOE down in Louisiana major props because they have bent over backwards over the past two years to try to make alternative methods, giving all these schools things that they can do with students including a competency level exam that can replace it for those students in the Catholic schools. There's a lot that they've done and this is pretty much from one of the Catholic schools in the state. Most of the rest of them have at least figured out the process. But I was in a meeting down there once and the principal of this one particular school looked at me and said, "I will work to get this repealed no matter what y'all do." So, this is coming pretty much from one individual or one school. So, we're going to continue fighting it. We're going to hope that it does not have legs and we'll see how it goes. But if you have connections to Louisiana, you might want to activate those to try to head off this and defeat it."

Submission + - NY Times Credits Python for Making Interest Calculation Easier than Assembly 1

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "One early computer language was Assembly, and it was devilishly hard to write," explains Clive Thompson in this week's New York Times Magazine cover story, Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming. "Say you wanted to write some code that would calculate how much you’d have if you got 5 percent interest on $10,000 over 10 years. Back in the 1960s, that would have required perhaps nine lines of pretty obtuse Assembly. [...] By the ’80s and ’90s, as computers became more powerful, engineers were able to create languages that took care of all that memory management for you, and also turned common asks into simple commands. In Python, a coder can perform that exact same calculation very simply: 'total_amount = 10000 * (1.05 ** 10).' That single line tells the computer to multiply 10,000 by the interest rate over 10 years and store the result in the variable labeled 'total_amount.' Programmers no longer need to think about where all the data is being stored in the computer’s memory; Python does that for them. It is, in other words, a layer of abstraction on top of all that fiddly memory business. Writing in that language is delightfully easier."

Not so fast, replied readers, who took issue with implying that Python — first released in 1991 — deserves credit for making interest calculation easy, pointing out that other languages such as FORTRAN, COBOL, and BASIC did so as much as 30+ years earlier. "Great article. Some of the history seems a little off though," said etaeng. "I was programming in the 1960s, and I can assure you that we had computer languages that created layers of abstraction even way back then," replied Post Mortem. "Notably, Fortran handled scientific and mathematical problems and Cobol addressed the business world. The code for Cobol would look something like, 'ADD INTEREST TO PRINCIPAL'. So while the author’s point is fundamentally correct, it’s a mistake to think that it took until the ‘80s and ‘90s for usable natural language approaches to arise." Commenter Howard Fairman explained, "the supposedly-breakthrough Python code for calculating compound interest actually dates from the advent of Fortran — 'formula translation' — in 1957." And gs had this to say: "An interesting but overlong article. But that interest calculation could also be done in the 1950s [IBM’s 1958 FORTRAN demo of compound interest by John Backus] in one line of COBOL or FORTRAN code. You didn‘t have to wait til the 1990s for Python."

Submission + - DOJ Documents Suggest Jeffrey Epstein Got a Million-Dollar Microsoft Payday

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: Among the tidbits in Fortune's How Jeffrey Epstein pulled Bill Gates and Microsoft into a web of sex, money, and secrets is the tale of how the convicted sex offender became a seven-figure negotiator for the departure of Microsoft Windows Chief Steven Sinofsky, who before his 2012 resignation was widely seen as a potential successor to then CEO Steve Ballmer. According to DOJ documents, Fortune reports, Epstein not only worked behind the scenes to help put together Sinofsky's $14 million dollar exit package from Microsoft, including reviewing documents from Microsoft President Brad Smith (then Microsoft's top lawyer), he was also paid handsomely for his advice.

From the article: "On April 3, 2013, he [Epstein] asked for a sizable sum to handle Sinofsky’s exit package directly: 'I will charge you a one million dollar fee,' Epstein wrote in an email to Sinofsky, after earlier writing that he was upset with the Microsoft executive’s seeming ingratitude for his help. [...] Sinofsky ultimately signed a $14 million exit deal with Microsoft. On Sept. 16, 2013, Epstein received a forwarded email with the subject line 'Sinofsky': in the body it said: 'Wire is completed.' The next morning, Epstein’s accountant confirmed: 'Wire hit JPM yesterday. Confirming $1,000,000.'"

Comment Tangible Products People Want (Score 4, Insightful) 22

It'd be nice to see AI used to help generate tangible products that people genuinely want and need - housing, transportation, farming, healthcare, etc. - especially if savings are passed on to consumers. Hard to get excited over the use of AI to generate task lists, emails, infinite pull requests, and "25-page reports with 100 citations" that no one wants/needs, the future of AI painted by excited execs at Microsoft's 2025 Annual Shareholders Meeting. :-)

Submission + - Tech Giant CEOs No-Shows at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Memorial Service

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: Before this week, the last time the three living former U.S. Presidents got together was at the Trump Inauguration in 2025 in Washington, DC. Joining them were current and former CEOs of Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple (Microsoft's CEO didn't attend, but the company sent a $1 million check).

So, on Friday, when former Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden reconvened in Chicago at the memorial service for civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., one might have expected to see the tech giant CEOs join them again. After all, their companies pledged to work with Jackson to do better on their hiring efforts, as Jackson first pressured Google and then the others into finally publishing their woeful EEO-1 diversity numbers that they formerly kept under wraps under the guise of 'trade secrets'. "We’ve always been reluctant to publish numbers about the diversity of our workforce at Google," confessed Google HR Chief Laszlo Bock in a 2014 mea culpa blog post. "We now realize we were wrong, and that it’s time to be candid about the issues. Put simply, Google is not where we want to be when it comes to diversity, and it’s hard to address these kinds of challenges if you’re not prepared to discuss them openly." The tech giants redoubled their racial equity pledges in 2020.

So, why wouldn't the tech CEOs come together at Jackson's memorial service and celebrate Jackson's life and accomplishments? Even Trump publicly praised Jackson (albeit with some unnecessary swipes at others). Well, one possible explanation might be that the workforce transparency the tech giants promised Jackson to determine how successful their efforts were going never fully materialized. The tech giants largely chose to spin their own cherrypicked metrics of workforce diversity success instead of publishing meaningful raw data for others to objectively analyze. Worse than that, a Wired report in November 2025 revealed that as Jackson's health took a turn for the worse, some tech giants — including Google, Microsoft, and Meta — stopped their decade-long practice of publishing statistics about the gender and racial makeup of their workforce altogether. "The broad loss in transparency," Wired reported, "could obscure the impact of President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI policies on the tech workforce." Yusef Jackson [Jesse Jackson's son], who now leads the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, said the group would fight the nondisclosure of diversity data.

All of which would certainly not make for the greatest of press, especially if it came out in the same week that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg closed on a new record breaking $170 million mansion on Miami's exclusive 'Billionaire Bunker' island that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos also calls home (and a billion-dollar tax shelter). By the way, Meta's last-published EEO-1 report shows that the number of reported Black employees was 43.6% lower at the end of 2023 than at the end of 2022, compared to an overall workforce reduction of 21.8% (Zuckerberg dubbed 2023 Meta's "Year of Efficiency").

Writing in Fortune, Brennan Nevada Johnson has a message for tech CEOs: "Reverend Jackson did not protest technology, but rather insisted on participating in shaping it. He forced an industry that prides itself on innovation to innovate socially. Today, despite much pushback due to the current administration, diversity reports, inclusive recruiting pipelines, and equity initiatives do exist across major tech firms. It’s so important that we honor Reverend Jackson’s legacy of continuing accountability. The future is still being built, and as Reverend Jesse Jackson reminded Silicon Valley [and even children], it must be built by all, for all."

Submission + - How Jeffrey Epstein Ingratiated Himself With Top Microsoft Execs

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In How Jeffrey Epstein Ingratiated Himself With Top Microsoft Executives, the NY Times begins, "For more than two decades, the convicted sex offender developed a network at the tech giant, making him privy to [CEO] succession discussions and other business. [...] The files from the Justice Department show that he spent more than a decade developing a network of Microsoft executives, including Mr. Gates; Nathan Myhrvold, a former technology chief; Steven Sinofsky, who ran Microsoft’s Windows division; Linda Stone, a former technology research executive; Reid Hoffman, a Microsoft board member; and employees of Mr. Gates’s personal investment and charity funds. [...] Frank Shaw, Microsoft’s communications chief, said the company was disappointed to read emails between Mr. Epstein and “former Microsoft employees acting in their personal capacities.” Without mentioning a name, Mr. Shaw acknowledged the emails showed that a former executive — who was Mr. [Steven] Sinofsky — had shared confidential company business with Mr. Epstein."

Email released by the DOJ related to Microsoft included: 1. Epstein being tipped off to the announcement of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's planned resignation announcement in Aug. 2013 by a forwarded email from the President of bgC3 [aka Gates Ventures], a personal service company for Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, on a day that saw Microsoft stock soar 7%., 2. Epstein being given a heads up by a redacted sender about a rumored 2011 Bill Gates return to Microsoft that never panned out, 3. Epstein being told in a 2013 Steven Sinofsky email about Ballmer's desire to buy a phone company that included some other juicy insider tidbits (when Microsoft's Nokia purchase was announced the following year, Microsoft stock sank 6%). In other correspondence, Sinofsky — who headed Microsoft's Windows Division — thanked Epstein for his advice in negotiating a $14 million exit package from Microsoft and later forwarded Epstein old internal email from top execs discussing the poor sales of the Microsoft Surface tablet.

In one Microsoft-related Epstein email, former Harvard President Larry Summers — who recently announced he's giving up his Harvard teaching appointments — sent Epstein a terse two-word email dissing Melinda Gates' Women in Tech initiative. "I'm gagging," Summers wrote, attaching an article about Gates' efforts (a search didn't find any reply from Epstein). Summers came under fire in 2005 when he said that women lack natural ability in math in science. Summers earlier resigned his OpenAI Board seat amid fallout over his Epstein ties that came to light following the DOJ's release of documents last November, which included the revelation that Summers and his wife were invited to dine with Bill and Melinda Gates at Epstein's NYC mansion in 2013 , Melinda's one and only Epstein encounter. Interestingly, Microsoft President Brad Smith — who coincidentally helped negotiate Microsoft's $14M exit package for Epstein-advised Sinofsky — cautioned OpenAI CEO Sam Altman about naming Summers to the OpenAI Board in November 2023. “Your future would be decided by Larry [Summers],” Smith texted. “He’s smart but so mercurial [...] too risky.” The advice went unheeded, with Altman saying the choice of Summers was non-negotiable.

Submission + - Microsoft: Computer Programming Is Dying, Long Live AI Literacy!

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: On Tuesday, Microsoft GM of Education and Workforce Policy (and former Code.org Chief Academic Officer) Pat Yongpradit posted an obituary of sorts for coders. "Computer programmers and software developers are codified differently in the BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data," Yongpradit wrote. "The modern AI-infused world needs less computer programmers (coders) and more software developers (more holistic and higher level). So when folks say that there is less hiring of computer programmers, they are right. But there will be more hiring of software developers, especially those who have adopted an AI-forward mindset and skillset. [...] The number of just pure computer programming roles has already been declining due to reasons like outsourcing, AI will just accelerate the decline."

On Wednesday, Yongpradit's colleague Allyson Knox, Senior Director of Education and Workforce Policy at Microsoft, put another AI nail in the coder coffin, testifying before the House Committee on Education & the Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education on Building an AI-ready America: Teaching in the Age of AI. "Thank you to Chairman Tim Walberg, Ranking Member Bobby Scott, Chair Kevin Kiley, Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to share Microsoft perspective and that of the educators and parents we hear from every day across the country," Knox wrote in a LinkedIn post. "Three themes continue to emerge throughout these discussions: 1. Educators want support to build AI literacy and critical thinking skills. 2. Schools need guidance and guardrails to ensure student data is protected and adults remain in control. 3. Teachers want classroom-ready tools, and a voice in shaping them. If we focus on these priorities, we can help ensure AI expands opportunity for every student across the United States."

Yongpradit and Knox report up to Microsoft President Brad Smith, who last July told Code.org CEO Hadi Partovi it was time for the tech-backed nonprofit to "switch hats" from coding to AI as Microsoft announced a new $4 billion initiative to advance AI education. Smith's thoughts on the extraordinary promise of AI in education were cited by Knox in her 2026 Congressional testimony. Interestingly, Knox argued for the importance of computer programming literacy in her 2013 Congressional testimony at a hearing on Our Nation of Builders: Training the Builders of the Future. "Congress needs to come up with fresh ideas on how we can continue to train the next generation of builders, programmers, manufacturers, technicians and entrepreneurs," said Rep. Lee Terry said to open the discussion.

So, are reports of computer programming's imminent death greatly exaggerated?

Submission + - CheatGPT: Teens Think AI Cheating Has Become a Regular Feature of Student Life

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In another case of life imitating the Simpsons ("Bart Gets Caught Using CheatGPT On His Homework"), nearly 60% of teenagers told Pew that students at their school used chatbots to cheat 'very often' or 'somewhat often', according to a report published Tuesday.

“We’re definitely seeing that the use of A.I. chatbots for help with schoolwork is becoming a common practice for teens,” said Colleen McClain, a senior researcher at Pew and a co-author of the study.

Among the teenagers surveyed, 47% said they had used chatbots for fun, while 42% said they used the tools to summarize content. A smaller group, 12%, said they had used bots for advice or emotional support. The results of the survey, the report said, indicate that teenagers think “cheating with A.I. has become a regular feature of student life.”

Submission + - NYT: 'AI Literacy' Is Trending in Schools. Here's Why.

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: "Computer literacy. Internet literacy. Social media literacy. Mobile literacy. Virtual reality literacy. Every few years," the NY Times reports in 'A.I. Literacy' Is Trending in Schools, "the tech industry introduces a new kind of product, then prods schools to teach millions of students how to use it. The pitch to train schoolchildren on the latest tech has stayed roughly the same since the introduction of personal computers in the late 1970s: improved learning and better career prospects. Since then, campaigns for a host of new tech literacies have come and gone — even as some of the promises failed to materialize. Now tech giants like Google, Microsoft and OpenAI are urging schools to teach the latest topic: A.I. literacy."

But as AI companies are urging teachers to prepare students for an 'A.I.-driven future,' what that means varies from school to school. Some, like Washington Park High School in Newark, are staking out a middle ground by treating AI as if it were a car and helping students develop rules for the road. Mike Taubman, a career explorations teacher who co-developed the school’s new literacy course, compared the class to preparing teenagers for their driver’s license exam. “Where do you want to go, and can A.I. help you get there?” Mr. Taubman asked. Students needed to learn to drive A.I. tools, analyze what’s under the hood, develop guidelines for personal use and design ideal safety policies, he said.

So, is "Are you steering the [AI] technology or is it steering you?" the new "Don’t just play on your phone, program it"?

Comment Re:Code.org finanicals show a decline (Score 1) 15

by theodp (#66004146) Attached to: Code.org President Steps Down Citing 'Upending' of CS By AI

FYI. Code.org opted to change its fiscal year from Dec. 31 to Aug. 31, so the two filings you looked at respectively cover 12 and 8 months. Also, revenue for nonprofits, especially those reliant on donations, is often seasonal, making this even more of an apples-to-oranges comparison. In any event, Code.org reported $75 million in assets at fiscal year-end in their latest public filing, so they weren't exactly looking for where their next dollar was coming from despite the negative net income for that year.

Submission + - Code.org President Steps Down, Citing 'Upending' of CS by AI

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: Last July, as Microsoft pledged $4 billion to advance AI education in K-12 schools, Microsoft President Brad Smith told Code.org CEO and Founder Hadi Partovi (Smith's next-door neighbor) that it was time for the tech-backed nonprofit to "switch hats" from coding to AI, adding that "the last 12 years have been about the Hour of Code, but the future involves the Hour of AI."

On Friday, Code.org announced leadership changes to make it so. "Today, I want to share a significant update regarding the leadership of Code.org," Partovi wrote on LinkedIn. After 13 years of truly exceptional service, my co-founder, partner and friend Cameron Wilson [who Smith and Google.org Chief Maggie Johnson personally asked to join Code.org] is transitioning to an executive advisor role with the organization. [...] I am thrilled to announce that Karim Meghji will be stepping into the role of President & CEO. Having worked closely with Karim over the last 3.5 years as our CPO, I have complete confidence that he possesses the perfect balance of historical context and 'founder-level' energy to lead us into an AI-centric future. For the past two years, I have been operating primarily as Chairman while Cameron handled CEO responsibilities. With Karim’s appointment, my title will be updated to better reflect my contributions and commitment to this organization as Chairman of the Board."

In a separate LinkedIn post, Wilson explained why he was stepping down: "Our community is entering a new chapter as AI changes and upends computer science as a discipline and society at large. Code.org’s mission is still the same, however, we are starting a new chapter focused on ensuring students can thrive in the Age of AI. This new chapter will bring new opportunities, new problems to solve, and new communities to engage. As Code.org enters this new chapter I’ve made the decision to step down from leading Code.org, move into an Executive Advisor role."

The Code.org leadership changes come just weeks after the K-12 CS and newly AI-focused education nonprofit confirmed it had laid off about 14% of its staff, explaining it had "made the difficult decision to part ways with 18 colleagues as part of efforts to ensure our long-term sustainability [Code.org revenue]." January also saw Code.org Chief Academic Officer Pat Yongpradit jump to Microsoft where he now helps "lead Microsoft's global strategy to put people first in an age of AI by shaping education and workforce policy" as a member of Microsoft's Global Education and Workforce Policy team, which reports up to Microsoft President Brad Smith.

Submission + - AI Cooties: OpenAI, Anthropic CEOs Avoid Holding Hands at India AI Impact Summit

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: In a scene straight out of HBO's Silicon Valley, CNBC and others report that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had an awkward moment on stage at the India AI Impact Summit on Thursday, choosing not to hold hands during a group photo of political and tech leaders as they stood alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, and others. Both had been keynote speakers. Modi had lifted Altman and Pichai’s hands before an applauding crowd, with others following suit. However, Altman and Amodei, who were side by side, raised their fists instead of holding hands with one another.

The snub comes following Anthropic's Super Bowl commercials that poked fun at OpenAI’s plan to start testing ads for free users and ChatGPT Go subscribers in the U.S., raising the ire of Altman, who called the ads "clearly dishonest," adding: "I guess it’s on brand for Anthropic doublespeak to use a deceptive ad to critique theoretical deceptive ads that aren’t real, but a Super Bowl ad is not where I would expect it." Anthropic was founded in 2021 by a group of former OpenAI staff and researchers, including Amodei, who left the company after disagreements over its direction.

Adding to the HBO Silicon Valley-like atmosphere was billionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who was scheduled to give a keynote alongside Altman and Amodei, but pulled out of the Summit hours before his planned keynote amid growing scrutiny over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The Gates Foundation said the decision was made after "careful consideration" and "to ensure the focus remains on the [summit's] key priorities", but did not elaborate.

Finally, an event that fellow Three-Comma Club member Russ Hanneman and aspiring members Gavin Belson and Erlich Bachman could bring their true selves to!

Submission + - Long Before Tech CEOs Turned to Layoffs to Cover AI Expenses, There Was WorldCom

Submitted by theodp
theodp writes: Jeopardy time. A. This company spurred CEOs to make huge speculative capital expenditures based on wild unverified claims of future demand, resulting in the layoffs of tens of thousands of workers to reduce the resulting expenses, harming their core businesses. Q. What is OpenAI?

Sorry, the correct response is, "What is WorldCom?" In 2002, WorldCom, the second largest long-distance company in the U.S., entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy after disclosing accounting fraud that eventually totaled $11 billion, the biggest ever at the time. CEO Bernard Ebbers was subsequently sentenced to 25 years in prison. CNBC reported that an employee of WorldCom’s Internet service provider UUNet set off a frenzy of speculative investment and infrastructure overbuild after he used Excel to create a best-case scenario model for the Internet’s growth that suggested in the best of all possible worlds, Internet traffic would double every 100 days, a scenario that would greatly benefit WorldCom, whose lines would carry it. Despite no evidence to support it, WorldCom’s lie became an immutable law and businesses around the world made important decisions based on the belief that traffic was doubling every 100 days.

"For some period of time I can recall that we were backfilling that expectation with laying cables, something like 2,200 miles of cable an hour,” AT&T CEO Michael Armstrong said. “Think of all the companies that went out of business that assumed that that was real.” Armstrong and former Sprint CEO Bill Esrey struggled for years to understand how WorldCom could beat them so handily. “We would look at the conduct of WorldCom in terms of their pricing, revenue growth, margins, in terms of their cost structure ... and the price leader almost every quarter was WorldCom,” Armstrong said. Added Esrey, “We couldn’t figure out how they were pricing as aggressively as they were. ... How could they be so efficient in their costs and expenses?”

AT&T and Sprint began cutting jobs to push down their costs to WorldCom’s level. “The market said what a marvelous management job WorldCom was doing and they would look over to AT&T and say, ‘these guys aren’t keeping up.’ So, my shareholders were hurt. We laid off tens of thousands of employees in an accelerated fashion [in a futile effort to match WorldCom's phantom profits] and I think the industry was hurt,” Armstrong says. “It just wrecked the whole industry,” says Esrey.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close