larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) (09/17/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0369m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I was fascinated by Mr. Lippman's interesting history and spirited > defense of GTE. Unfortunately it doesn't explain away reality. > ... > We moved to southern California and in GTE land we were shocked. We > learned what it's like to not have calls routinely completed. We even > complained to repair and were told, "Oh, that's normal. You know, > we're so heavily overloaded." Interesting that neighboring areas > served by Pacific Telephone didn't have those problems. For the past few days I have been trying to determine how to respond to your statements, and until today have been at a loss for words. I admit that I have had no firsthand experience with GTE in California, but I have had considerable experience with GTE elsewhere, and I have known a number of people in both the GTE manufacturing organizations and in their operating telephone companies. What you relate is simply contrary to what I have personally experienced. Its sounds like GTE has let their CO apparatus go to hell in the proverbial handbasket. I will defend to my death that SxS apparatus, while hardly state-of-the-art, is actually rather reliable - PROVIDED that it has been cleaned, oiled, routined and otherwise maintained. It sounds like such maintenance was simply not performed, which indicates some serious lack of CO personnel and serious lack of responsible management for a telephone company. The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these service problems. Now, the burning question is how could GTE allow this to happen in California? The most reasonable answer just appeared in telecom article <telecom-v09i0377m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> by goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com, and boils down to not having enough revenue to operate a telephone company in a reasonable manner. $> The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel) $> very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below $> everybody else. When most states were allowing 13% and California was $> allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in? To make matters worse, $> C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI $> even more. $> $> AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go $> down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate $> of return. But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave $> the state pretty much what it paid for. > Ask anyone who has had any *real experience* and they will tell you > the truth about AE directorized SXS. I sat in Los Gatos for several > hours one day and determined that AE step has about an 80% call > completion average. Not really impressive. When I called to complain I > was told that the problem was with the "old" equipment that would soon > be replaced. Actually, most central offices are designed with an overall grade of service between .01 and .001. This means that it is "acceptable" for between 1-call-in-100 and 1-call-in-1000 being lost due to equipment failure or trunk blockage. Prior to ESS, a .01 grade of service was not uncommon. So, your apparent grade of service was .2; it could have been a .3, and therefore worse. :-) > When they installed their highly-touted 1EAX we were all told, as Mr. > Lippman pointed out, that this equipment was more advanced than the ESS > being used by Bell in the surrounding areas. Why then did it routinely > crash, not offer most features available in Pac*Bell, and find itself > already on the replacement list if it was so wonderful? Beats the hell outta me... I have seen the No. 1 EAX, and it is not junk. I don't know why there was trouble in this particular office, unless it was a very early machine (say, before 1974). Part of the problem may be the CO personnel being inadequately trained. ESS has been a real culture shock for older SxS switchmen who have learned their trade solely through on-the-job experience. It is pretty difficult to teach the use of an oscilloscope to someone whose principal troubleshooting tools have been a test lamp and test receiver for the past 25 years. I have personally seen a case where an "older generation" SxS switchman destroyed half the MF receivers and all of the spare boards in a CO because he was trying to examine TTL levels with a test lamp, one side of which was connected to -48 volts! Despite what appeared to be adequate training, this fellow really never understood what he was doing. > Glossary term for the day: > subscriber carrier; GTE's answer to undercapitalization The Bell System has also used subscriber line carrier of the lowest quality - the infamous Superior/Continental AML. This subscriber line carrier provides no bridged ringing (ringing is brought out on a third wire), and offers an on-hook loop voltage to the subscriber station of a whole 6 volts (less, if the battery ain't charged). Needless to say, such subscriber line carrier at best can operate a 500-type set, and nothing else. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0383m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which > you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these > service problems. It is obvious, from the very encounters that I have experienced with GTE that it is indeed the people who make (or in GTE's case) break the operation. > Beats the hell outta me... I have seen the No. 1 EAX, and it is > not junk. I don't know why there was trouble in this particular office, > unless it was a very early machine (say, before 1974). Part of the As a matter of fact, it was installed in about 1974. At that time they offered no features whatsoever. It was many years before I learned that they were offering call waiting and call forwarding (and nothing else). At a place served by this switch, I had particular use for three-way calling, but it has never been available. Down south, I know that GTE does offer 3-way in the No. 1 EAX. The scuttlebutt around the times the switch went completely down was that some local character who knew nothing really about the equipment was fooling around with the programming and managed to screw it up to the point where it would no longer process calls. The reason it was down for so long is that they had to fly a specialist up from Santa Monica to straighten the mess out. The EAX call forwarding has a neat feature (seriously). If you dial 79#, you will be immediately forwarded to the number previously forworded to. This is handy if you regularly forward to the same number, or want someone to forward your phone without having to reveal the number it's being forwarded to. As an aside, I should point out that GTE Mobilnet (the wireline cellular provider in the Bay Area) is quite an excellent operation. The coverage is good, the service reliable, the people responsive. Calls complete in about 2 seconds (as opposed to about 20 seconds for PacTel Cellular in the LA area). GTE Mobilnet offers superior subscription plans to Cellular One (the Bay Area non-wireline system owned primarily by Pacific Telesis) and has been first with all of the GeeWhiz features like a big area, follow-me roaming, etc. We have all theorized that it must be some other GTE, since GTE California is just the opposite--running the worst phone company I have ever seen. > The Bell System has also used subscriber line carrier of the lowest > quality - the infamous Superior/Continental AML. This subscriber line > carrier provides no bridged ringing (ringing is brought out on a third wire), > and offers an on-hook loop voltage to the subscriber station of a whole > 6 volts (less, if the battery ain't charged). Needless to say, such > subscriber line carrier at best can operate a 500-type set, and nothing > else. Fortunately, I have never seen any of that. But GTE in California used theirs as a matter of routine. A favorite trick of the pea-brains in Los Gatos was to install subscriber carrier and then at some future time turn off the service of the metallic subscriber (battery and all). After some indeterminate amount of time, the nicad in the SC unit would become weak and the carrier subscriber's service would just fade away. This actually happened to me. You should have heard me trying to explain this to some 611 droid. You should have seen how long it took them to fix it. After several days I rigged up an outboard supply and got my service back. That fix would be there to this day if they hadn't finally added more cable to the area and converted my line to metallic. And this was business service! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
scott@cs.utexas.edu (Scott Hazen Mueller) (09/22/89)
John Higdon wrote: |Fortunately, I have never seen any of that. But GTE in California used |theirs as a matter of routine. A favorite trick of the pea-brains in |Los Gatos was to install subscriber carrier and then at some future |time turn off the service of the metallic subscriber (battery and all). |After some indeterminate amount of time, the nicad in the SC unit would |become weak and the carrier subscriber's service would just fade away. |This actually happened to me. You should have heard me trying to |explain this to some 611 droid. You should have seen how long it took |them to fix it. After several days I rigged up an outboard supply and |got my service back. That fix would be there to this day if they hadn't |finally added more cable to the area and converted my line to metallic. |And this was business service! I'm not picking on John, really I'm not; his was just a good example. I read the the words, but I'm seriously lacking some referents. For instance, "subscriber carrier"? The description implies a <something> generator on John's premises, which was powered from the phone system, and which he added a power supply to when GTE switched it off. What is it, and why is it bad, and why is their carrier on a phone line anyway? I though that it was DC with pure AM transmission? Also, his line was "converted to metallic"? What was it before it was metallic - a piece of string with two tin cans? I find Telecom Digest very informative, and I like the stories about old phone equipment and telco history, when I can understand them. I would love to see on occasional tutorial article to clarify some of these things. Scott Hazen Mueller| scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott 685 Balfour Drive | (408) 298-6213 |Mail to fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG San Jose, CA 95111 |No room for quote.|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email [Moderator's Note: Actually, Scott has an interesting idea. Would any of you be interested in writing part of a tutorial, something we might call "TELECOM Digest Guide to How Telephones Work" or similar? Maybe it could be a five or six part tutorial, with a section devoted to crossbar; a section devoted to ESS; a section on the workings of the instrument itself; a section on cellular; one for historic information, etc. They would be kept in the archives and accessible on request. Another part might be "Most Common Questions and Answers from the Digest", which would be sent out to all new subscribers automatically. Write me personally with your ideas on this. 'ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu'. PT]
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0394m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!scott@ cs.utexas.edu (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes: > I'm not picking on John, really I'm not; his was just a good example. I > read the the words, but I'm seriously lacking some referents. For instance, > "subscriber carrier"? When the phone company runs out of pairs and there are more lines that need to be installed, subscriber carrier allows two subscribers to use one physical pair of wires. At the CO (or wherever it is necessary to channel two services into one pair) a carrier unit is installed and a matching unit at the "carrier" customer's location. The unit superimposes 30-60 KHz carriers on the line which carries the voice and supervisory signals. The "metallic" customer is the one using the line in the conventional manner with a conventional instrument, while the "carrier" customer has his service out of a "subscriber carrier" unit. > The description implies a <something> generator on > John's premises, which was powered from the phone system, and which he > added a power supply to when GTE switched it off. Yes, the unit is on the premises. It has a nicad which trickle charges off the DC on the phone line when the line is not in use by either party. The ring current, talk battery, and carrier encoding/decoding are all powered by that nicad. If the phone is used a lot, or for some reason that DC is not present, eventually the carrier subscriber's phone may not ring or even pull dial tone. Fortunately, there is a place inside the unit where one can hook up a 15V transformer and the unit then becomes independent of the DC on the line. > Also, his line was "converted to metallic"? Eventually, they had enough cable pairs in the area (by installing new cable) to give me one all to myself. > What was it before it was metallic - a piece of string with two tin cans? No. That probably would have worked better. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
jeh%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu (09/25/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0383m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: > I admit that I have had no firsthand experience with GTE in California... Then why, may I ask, are you saying anything at all on the subject? Ask anybody who's had the misfortune to live in a GTE area in SoCal. I have. (I mean I've lived there, not just asked someone else.) The telephone "service", if I may use the term lightly, was abominable. I personally experienced all of the horrors described by others here (lousy call completion rate, wildly wrong numbers, noisy-and-not-just-white-noise lines), and then some. One aspect of GTE SoCal that I haven't seen mentioned is their pay phones. I once spent a miserable two days looking for an apartment in the west/ southwest LA area (almost all covered by GTE), driving around with a car full of newspapers and a pocketful of dimes. It got so I wouldn't even bother stopping at a GTE pay phone unless there were at least two of them together, as only then was it likely that I'd find a single working phone. The defective phones were in nice areas and had no signs of exterior damage -- they just didn't work. Often they'd be sitting there emitting strange clicking and thunking noises, as if they couldn't quite digest that last coin. Others would appear to be fine until you put a dime in. About three out of four of these would deign to provide a dial tone. About three out of four of THOSE would actually give a ringback signal after you'd dialed your number... (yes, GTE was charging 20 cents, on average, for pay phone calls LONG before it was authorized by the PUC!) I know a fair number of people for whom Pacific Telephone vs. GTE was a factor in choosing a place to live -- and not the least important factor by far. Oh, and then there was the "GTE Phone Center" in Del Amo mall, which opened at 9 AM and closed promptly at 6 PM on weekdays, and was not open at all on weekends. I had to visit this place at least twice to establish phone service. I got off work at 5 PM, at (roughly) Wilshire and Crenshaw. This is a thirty-minute drive under the best of conditions (say, at 2 AM). Good luck! Apparently these people had never heard of households where both people work, nor of making their company easy to do business with. > The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which > you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these > service problems. So what? When I say that "GTE gives lousy phone service in the LA area", I am not complaining about the equipment, the wiring, the management, or the color of their trucks. I'm complaining about the whole picture. I don't know what the underlying reason is, and for the most part, I DON'T CARE! I just want things to improve! > Now, the burning question is how could GTE allow this to happen in > California? The most reasonable answer just appeared in telecom article > <telecom-v09i0377m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> by goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com, > and boils down to not having enough revenue to operate a telephone company > in a reasonable manner. > > $> The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel) > $> very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below > $> everybody else. When most states were allowing 13% and California was > $> allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in? To make matters worse, > $> C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI > $> even more. > $> > $> AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go > $> down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate > $> of return. But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave > $> the state pretty much what it paid for. One might ask why GTE wasn't equally concerned about THEIR reputation. The GTE logo is prominent on many products sold in the commercial and consumer sectors. The Los Angeles area is not exactly devoid of customers for such products. My experiences with GTE phone service would definitely make me wary of anything else with the GTE logo. Yes, I know, different parts of the company... but if they don't care about QC in one division, why should I believe that others are any different? --- Jamie Hanrahan