rhc@agate.berkeley.edu (03/11/91)
How about fault tolerance? With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be swifter/easier. It's just a precautionary measure; It has nothing to do with democracy. [Moderator's Note: I generally agree with you; but I think where a lot of the readers here would disagree is because of Telco's attitudes in the past. They would probably say *if* telco was run in a fair and impartial way; and *if* the utility at all times dedicated itself only to the good of its customers; and *if* Telco was a bit quicker to make new innovations available to all customers; and *if* telco was more responsive to customer concerns, etc. -- then the monopoly status would probably be okay. But because there have been so many instances where Telco has offended a large number of customers in one way or another, people would now rather see competition, even if competition at times causes some inconvenience. I'm not sure I agree. I'd rather see the monopoly continue with very tight reins kept on Telco. PAT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/11/91)
rhc@agate.berkeley.edu writes: > With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to > compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be > swifter/easier. But as was to sharply demonstrated in the Bay Area 'quake of 89, diverse facilities is a plus, not a minus. Calls on AT&T were a joke; the facilities were completely unavailable. This could have been due to intentional blockage, but the fact is that I was able to communicate with my clients while out of the area thanks to several cheaptone OCCs that had no problem whatever completing my calls. Likewise, while dialtone was not forthcoming from Pac*Bell offices, many were able to complete emergency calls via cellular, which in the case of GTE Mobilnet was working very well. The point is that if there are alternate means of communication, a calamity that befalls one will not affect another. IMHO, Pac*Bell failed miserably during the October, 1989 incident. No one would second that statement more than Centrex customers who found themselves without even inter-departmental communications for days. In this case, those with PBXs (an alternative means of communication that does not depend on telco COs for internal connections) found that they could at least call down to the mail room or up to the executive suite. Handling of emergency conditions is not a valid argument against LEC competition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) (03/12/91)
In article <telecom11.196.10@eecs.nwu.edu> rhc@agate.berkeley.edu writes: => How about fault tolerance? => With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to => compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be => swifter/easier. If more than one independent telephone network served the same area, would that not provide the same, if not a greater, degree of redundancy? => It's just a precautionary measure; It has nothing to do with => democracy. Independent networks would preserve democracy and capitalism, while at the same time increasing equipment duplication, and hence system resiliance. => [Moderator's Note: I generally agree with you; but I think where a lot => of the readers here would disagree is because of Telco's attitudes in => the past. They would probably say *if* telco was run in a fair and => impartial way; and *if* the utility at all times dedicated itself only => to the good of its customers; and *if* Telco was a bit quicker to make => new innovations available to all customers; and *if* telco was more => responsive to customer concerns, etc. -- then the monopoly status => would probably be okay. There are also some who oppose the telco monopoly because monopolies, by definition, deny competition. It has proved an impossible task to hold the reins on large monopoly industries, such as utilities, as their power is absolute. Most PUC decisions are made in favor of the utilities, not the consumer. Competition reduces prices, & helps to ensure a higher quality of service. => But because there have been so many instances => where Telco has offended a large number of customers in one way or => another, people would now rather see competition, even if competition => at times causes some inconvenience. I'm not sure I agree. I'd rather => see the monopoly continue with very tight reins kept on Telco. PAT] While I concur with Pat's reasoning, his conclusion that it would be better to see the monopoly continue is puzzling. What demonstrable benefit is there in a regulated monopoly, vs. the open market? Steven S. Brack sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu sbrack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu (Avoid sending here, if possible)
richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) (03/15/91)
In article <telecom11.198.2@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot. ati.com> writes: > rhc@agate.berkeley.edu writes: >> With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to >> compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be >> swifter/easier. > But as was to sharply demonstrated in the Bay Area 'quake of 89, > diverse facilities is a plus, not a minus. Calls on AT&T were a joke; > the facilities were completely unavailable. This could have been due > to intentional blockage, but the fact is that I was able to > communicate with my clients while out of the area thanks to several > cheaptone OCCs that had no problem whatever completing my calls. At the risk of sounding like another one of "those AT&T employees," I thought I'd give a little background on the earthquake and the network management techniques AT&T used. Actually, after the earthquake, AT&T facilities were operating properly, albeit under an extremely heavy load. The day after the quake was the busiest day in the AT&T network ever (at that time). Most residents of Northern California had problems completing calls because they couldn't get to the AT&T network because of failures in the local network. As regards to intentional blockage, the philosophy is to permit as many calls as possible OUT of the affected area, while severely limiting the number of calls INTO the affected area. Thus, intentional blockage was used around the rest of the country (to the tune of 90% of attempts were not allowed to try to complete), while all calls reaching the AT&T network from the bay area were allowed through the network. Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.
linneweh@uunet.uu.net (Louis Linneweh) (03/16/91)
sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > While I concur with Pat's reasoning, his conclusion that it would be > better to see the monopoly continue is puzzling. What demonstrable > benefit is there in a regulated monopoly, vs. the open market? In a word: standards. De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often; archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less. For the public and even for telephony equipment suppliers. They just couldn't change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage. Hmmmm. I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone virtually anywhere in the country. I used to feel confident my kids could call me from those same phones. That is simply no longer true today. Sure, a lot of committees could set standards and a lot of laws could enforce them. But they don't and they are not effective. So far the basic telephones have remained compatible. At least I haven't called anyone I wasn't able to talk to and hear in return. But I worry about ISDN, Open Network Architecture, and the burgeoning features available. Will I always be able to talk to the person I called? OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose. None the less, I don't always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore. That's a terrible step backward! That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone company.
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/16/91)
Louis Linneweh <motcid!linneweh@uunet.uu.net> writes: > In a word: standards. De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often; > archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less. For the > public and even for telephony equipment suppliers. They just couldn't > change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage. Hmmmm. Standards are as firm as ever since the breakup. Bellcore, the God of telephone standards and blessings is as healthy as ever. In fact, of necessity, the standards are now fully documented and available to all instead of being secretly tucked away with the attitude that "only the phone company and its employees need to know about such things". > I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone > virtually anywhere in the country. I used to feel confident my kids > could call me from those same phones. Is that so? I remember many years before anyone had ever heard of Judge Greene. Traveling around the country, I found some phones could direct dial long distance and some could not. Of those that could not, sometimes it was necessary to dial "0"; from others "110"; from still others "112". Of those that could dial long distance direct, some required a "1"; some required a "110"; some a "circle digit"; some requested the calling number while others did not. Oh, and by the way, almost none of the payphones would allow the customer to dial his own long distance call (at least before TSPS). > OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose. None the less, I don't > always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore. Yes, you are. And being very short sighted at that. You have focused on the one major aberration of divestiture, COCOTs. The problem here is that no one is enforcing regulations already in place. And I am very curious: what is so hard about placing a call on a COCOT? All of the complaints that I have heard center around the cost and deception regarding the long distance carrier, not that it requires any special effort or knowledge to place the call. > That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone > company. It is a pretty weak one. Besides the seven RBOCs in this country there are hundreds of independent telcos providing LEC services. They were there before divestiture as well. Did you feel that your precious standards were being violated by all of these different companies then? If hundreds of telephone companies around the country can maintain standards, then two or three LECs can maintain them in a particular community. Claiming that monopoly is necessary to preserve the ease and convenience of telephony is a wheezing old argument that even the telcos are beginning to put to rest. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
linneweh@uunet.uu.net (Louis Linneweh) (03/19/91)
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Standards are as firm as ever since the breakup. Bellcore, the God of > telephone standards and blessings is as healthy as ever. In fact, of > necessity, the standards are now fully documented and available to all I'm very familiar with Bellcore standards, and you are quite right. The documantation of inter-system standards is a very healthy developement (but one that was well underway before Judge Greene.) I was thinking more of the user interface, which you seem to feel was never very good. Perhaps I'm not as well traveled as you are. But I was very frustrated in the waiting room of a metropolitan airport (Atlanta? Dallas?) which had payphones with special buttons for all the ICs but AT&T. AT&T had their own CRT credit card reading phones, which I couldn't figure out how to use (after 15 minutes, including calling the "assistance" number listed "What kind of phone?"), I discovered that the phone was just broken, and the one next to it worked fine! (It was so unfamiliar and "complex" I didn't realize the phone was not working! I thought I was doing something wrong!) > ... And being very short sighted at that. Sorry, I do tend to be overly satisfied with things that I think are working well, and don't see as much need to progress as other, more agressive business people. > You have focused > on the one major aberration of divestiture, COCOTs. The problem here > is that no one is enforcing regulations already in place. And I am > very curious: what is so hard about placing a call on a COCOT? I guess I addressed this. Funny how it was AT&T itself that caused my grief, but it was the result of the MFJ. I've had other, similar problems trying to use my AT&T card from the random phone (and my kids from their college dorm room phones, where experimentation was the only way to learn, and that has changed at least once this year.) > All of the complaints that I have heard center around the cost and > deception regarding the long distance carrier, not that it requires > any special effort or knowledge to place the call. Probably because most people who complain attribute to malice that which I write off as discourtesy. Complaining about inconvenievce is not as important as exposing an attempt to defraud. But I do feel, in the larger sense, that the door was opened by the MFJ for providers, out to make a buck, to abuse the public. Telecom buyer beware is the order of the day. Maybe a small price for progress, but a price that could continue to grow since the general population has no organized voice to compete with the special intrests of businesses. > It is a pretty weak one. Besides the seven RBOCs in this country there > are hundreds of independent telcos providing LEC services. They were > there before divestiture as well. Did you feel that your precious > standards were being violated by all of these different companies > then? If hundreds of telephone companies around the country can > maintain standards, then two or three LECs can maintain them in a > particular community. Claiming that monopoly is necessary to preserve > the ease and convenience of telephony is a wheezing old argument that > even the telcos are beginning to put to rest. It is an old argument, and a good one. The hundreds of independent phone companies HAD to follow the de facto standards when there was only one carrier. But now, each carrier is trying to inovate to "capture" more of the market. Progress. The RBOCS must now join the general rush to "retain and recapture" market. More progress. Not the end of the world, just the end of an era ... that had some advantages. By the way, I have come to believe that, since we already have IC competition, there would be little more to lose by letting the other shoe drop. I think it is time for LEC competition. Surprised? Cellular has survived - some would say flourished - in a competitive environment. I would like to be able to say: "I don't like the service I'm getting, connect my drop to the other LEC please." And in my simple view of things that would leave a wire-line monopoly from my house to the mainframe, where I could be cross connected to one of several LECs. But the cable companies would like to even broaden that, I'm sure. OK. Let it rip. But my job involves thinking about phone calls. I do it all day. I'd like to think one of the results of all that work is the ability to actually MAKE a call WITHOUT having to think. I'm just one of many people designing telecom systems though, so how do we preserve simplicity and still provide the progress everyone wants?
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (03/20/91)
In article <telecom11.207.1@eecs.nwu.edu> motcid!linneweh@uunet.uu.net (Louis Linneweh) writes: > sbrack@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: >> While I concur with Pat's reasoning, his conclusion that it would be >> better to see the monopoly continue is puzzling. What demonstrable >> benefit is there in a regulated monopoly, vs. the open market? > In a word: standards. De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often; > archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less. For the > public and even for telephony equipment suppliers. They just couldn't > change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage. Hmmmm. Hmmm. They just wouldn't change the system. They didn't need a marketing advantage. They owned the market. > I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone > virtually anywhere in the country. I used to feel confident my kids > could call me from those same phones. That is simply no longer true > today. Sure, a lot of committees could set standards and a lot of > laws could enforce them. But they don't and they are not effective. I happen to disagree with Pat concerning the need for the breakup of the Monopoly. However, I happen to agree with him that the results were terrible. The breakup was orchestrated with sledgehammer and a dull chisel, instead of a microscope and micromanipulators. COCOTs are one result. Public telephones are a Public Service, as well as a Consumer Service. The Mother Forgot Judgement *ignored* the Public Service aspect and treated public telephones completely as a consumer convenience item. > So far the basic telephones have remained compatible. At least I > haven't called anyone I wasn't able to talk to and hear in return. > But I worry about ISDN, Open Network Architecture, and the burgeoning > features available. Will I always be able to talk to the person I > called? OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose. None the less, I don't > always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore. That's a > terrible step backward! I honestly hope and believe you'll never have to worry about any of that except the pay phones. Uh, well maybe you'll pick the wrong long distance carrier and hear a new intercept: "Sorry, that long distance carrier is no longer in service, please call your business office." > That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone > company. They're my reasons for wishing it hadn't happened THEN, with THAT JUDGE. But ATT was too monopolistic, the only changes, even on low levels were happening due to court action. Remember, without court intervention you probably would still have 1200 baud modems only supplied by ATT. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/20/91)
Louis Linneweh <motcid!linneweh@uunet.uu.net> writes: > But I was very frustrated in the waiting room of a metropolitan airport > (Atlanta? Dallas?) which had payphones with special buttons for all > the ICs but AT&T. AT&T had their own CRT credit card reading phones, > which I couldn't figure out how to use (after 15 minutes, including > calling the "assistance" number listed "What kind of phone?"), I > discovered that the phone was just broken, and the one next to it > worked fine! (It was so unfamiliar and "complex" I didn't realize the > phone was not working! I thought I was doing something wrong!) In the case of either AT&T or utility whoopie-whizzo phones that have all those carrier buttons and card readers, ad nauseum, one simple fact still remains: you can usually place an ordinary calling card call by dialing 0+10D or if necessary, 10288+0+10D. You do not have to actually use all of that 'stuff'. All of the phones similar to what you describe seem to be able to be used in a most conventional manner. So if you want tradition -- you got it! On the other hand, you CAN use other carriers, other billing arrangements -- things that were not possible a few years ago. Can you imagine trying to use a "BankAmeriCard" in the '70s to make a phone call from a payphone? Not bloody possible. And what better place than airports to have phones that are capable of many billing arrangements, considering all the moaning in this forum about how foreign visitors have such a tough time making calls with out stored-value cards and the like. A credit card is a credit card. They work just fine in any country, no? (I have a Visa bill from my trip to Japan to prove it!) So while you may seem to be inconvenienced, there are others who are delighted with the panoply of choices. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !