john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/24/89)
Even for days following the 5:04 pm shock, dialtone was agonizingly
slow in the crossbar offices, while electronic offices seemed to be
unaffected. This brings up an issue: even for basic service, there are
unequal levels even though customers pay equally.
As an incentive to upgrade, I would propose that anyone served out of
an electromechanical office be charged some fixed amount less than
"equivalent" service out of an electronic office. For those of you
served by real telcos who upgraded long ago, this is not an issue. But
there are many prefixes in San Jose alone still "served" (term loosely
used) by #5 grossbar. Pac*Bell needs some kind of incentive to get its
act together.
My mother's telephone is connected to crossbar and she thought that
her phone was knocked out for days. She didn't know that she could
have used it by simply waiting the two or three minutes for dialtone.
And we're talking days after the event.
Are there any other telcos out there that seem to feel that crossbar
is appropriate for telephony as we move into the '90s?
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (10/26/89)
John Higdon proposes that customers served by crossbar COs be charged less than those served by digital offices. Actually, it costs MORE to maintain a crossbar switch. In many cases the telco would love to scrap out the old switch, but the PUC claims that it still has years of service left and is not ready to be written off. In Washington State, US West shocked me and a lot of other folks by scrapping ALL of their electomechanical switches, even in the tiniest of communities. Some Northern Telecom salesman showed them how even with the big up front cost, they could save so much on maintainence and get so much more revenue from new services that there was a very quick payback. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (10/26/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0470m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > As an incentive to upgrade, I would propose that anyone served out of > an electromechanical office be charged some fixed amount less than > "equivalent" service out of an electronic office. For those of you > served by real telcos who upgraded long ago, this is not an issue. But > there are many prefixes in San Jose alone still "served" (term loosely > used) by #5 grossbar. Pac*Bell needs some kind of incentive to get its > act together. The cost of providing service with an electromechanical office is higher than the cost of providing service with an electronic office. Revenues for electronic offices are already higher than for electromechanical offices, because some percentage of the subscribers buy the extra-cost custom calling features. It would seem that the incentive is already there! But the real cost of either office depends upon how long it lives. Swapping out a central office switch before its time plays havoc with a delicate balance of rate-of-return and depreciation schedules. The schedule for a given central office may be pushed one way or another by the demands of the major business subscribers in its serving area; the over-all schedule is probably pretty well cast in stone by the telco _and_ the regulators. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/27/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0473m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, westmark!dave@uunet.uu. net (Dave Levenson) writes: > The schedule for a given central office may be pushed one way or another > by the demands of the major business subscribers in its serving area; > the over-all schedule is probably pretty well cast in stone by the > telco _and_ the regulators. Ah-hah! That explains a lot. Up until recently, we had the "big four" crossbar offices: ALpine, serving Cupertino, west San Jose, and Campbell; ANdrews, serving Willow Glen and upper Almaden; CLayburn, serving the east side and foothills; and AXminster, serving a small part of San Jose and southeast Santa Clara. ALpine just went DMS. And guess which famous computer company has its think-tank and corporate offices in Cupertino. As someone said, some customers are more equal than others. All those other areas mentioned above are bedroom districts. Where I live in Willow Glen, the highest tech business you are likely to find is a grocery store. Our crossbar should be replaced around 2015, if we're fortunate. Those other areas are the same way: nothing but houses and shopping centers. I suppose crossbar is here to stay in San Jose! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) (10/28/89)
Besides large corporate customers, other factors which affect the decision to replace a switch include the rate of growth and the growth in the use of data. The marginal cost of adding capacity to a crossbar is very high; if growth in lines or call holding times is fast enough, it is cheaper to put in a new switch than continue to upgrade an old one. In addition to being the home of a large computer company, Cupertino has experienced rapid growth as well. Marvin Sirbu CMU
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) (10/29/89)
For a long time, Cleveland {has} had unequal service, in the reverse
direction. 471-1212 got you a time recording, which in crossbar, panel
or step offices timed out after about 2 minutes (unless it was New
Year's Eve).
But if you moved into a ESS, you got 20 seconds - two annoucements. If
you called as the second call of a threeway, you got one. Bang.
Needless to say, this made it hard to set your digital watch. I
complained. OBT denied there was a problem, but said if there was, it
must be in my CPE,{;-)} and they would check it for a $40.00 visit
charge. I countered with a $40.00 charge for MY time if their visit
turned up zilch. They announced again there was no problem, said the
tariffs forbit me from charging them, and threatened to disconnect my
service for not registering my answering machine.
About this time I moved elsewhere. But I did learn something. Always
write letters to the business office. They HATE that. (I am not sure
if only the supervisers can read, or they have an elite section....)
Further, each letter I got back came signed by "your service rep."
===================
A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFMG
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (10/29/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0475m08@vector.dallas.tx.us>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: ] In article <telecom-v09i0473m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, westmark!dave@uunet.uu. ] net (Dave Levenson) writes: ] > The schedule for a given central office may be pushed one way or another ] > by the demands of the major business subscribers in its serving area; ] > the over-all schedule is probably pretty well cast in stone by the ] > telco _and_ the regulators. ] Where I ] live in Willow Glen, the highest tech business you are likely to find ] is a grocery store. Our crossbar should be replaced around 2015, if ] we're fortunate. Actually, it shouldn't be that bad. Crossbars stopped being installed in about 1970, if memory serves correctly. The longest depreciation schedule I know of is 40 years, so you should be able to get rid of it by, oh, about 2010... ;-) ] I suppose crossbar is here to stay in San Jose! Well, a good solid 8.0 earthwake with the epicenter directly under your CO should be able to encourage the telco to modernize... ;-) again! David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."