DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) (08/09/89)
Not that I want to be the one to start a "war" over a small post, but the article posted in the Digest (issue 278) by 'myerston@cts.sri.com' was just a bit too insluting to let pass. Initially, I sent an article to the digest about, amongst other things, how hard it is with newer, post-divestiture operators, to complete a call that requires special handling via an AT&T/Bell operator. Now admittedly I wasn't too stoical about this, and found it somewhat amusing that times have changed to the extent that most operators have never even *heard* of a mobile operator or have any idea of how to connect to one. I also find this somewhat disturbing, as if this were an emergency, someone who needed to get through quickly and did not have any knowledge of how the "phrase" his or her request would waste a good deal of time repeating the request until an operator was found who could handle the call. In any event, Mr. Myerston thought it was just "tooo cuuute". He seems to think that finding out things like this by actually trying it out is a waste of Bell's time, and that I should be doing other things besides calling remote areas to find out routing codes, etc. He also assumes that I am in a sense 'picking' on people who are paid less than I am to see how they fail at their tasks. Well, Mr. Myerston, I don't know what YOU were reading, or more likely what you read INTO my posting, but I don't think I said something like "Hey, look at those sappy, underpaid AT&T ops who are SO incompetent that they can't even route a call to Canada!" Take a look again...I clearly didn't intend to make fun of anyone... What I think I said, and what I do still argue, is that it is amusing to see people who supposedly know more than I do about phones and who are supposed to be trained to handle such calls make such a big production over a rather simple task. I find it somewhat funny that after I tell them a routing they say "Let me check..." and then come back a few seconds later and go "Yeah, you're right...You must call there a lot!". I don't think this is making fun of them, but rather something we all could enjoy as a diverting and unusual situation that doesn't occur all too often in an age of automated collect-calling systems and voice-synthesized Directory Assistance computers. As a matter of fact, when calling up to Hay River, Canada about 3 years ago, I said to the operator, who was having a particularly hard time in getting through, "Sorry to have to call so late..." and she said "Oh no!!.. This is the most fun I've had all day!" Now I'm not saying I call to make the operator's day, or that it's OK to do this all day and repeatedly bother them, but once in a while is a different story. I find it really hard to believe that you find this sufficient cause to publicly make note of how "cute" my post was in an attempt to show your disapproval of my behavior. Rather than sending me a personal note, or posting something like "But doesn't that get to bother the operators and should we all be doing that?" asking whether the Digest should discuss things of that nature, you just had to flame off on your keyboard some silly old message which was quite rude and in my own opinion, unwarranted. Oh, and you said you wanted some numbers at Wesleyan that you could play with? Try calling Wesleyan's modem dialups...Maybe if you listen REALLY carefully to the carriers you could find something about THAT that you don't like as well...Can't wait to hear about it in some future Digest issue! In the future, please restrain yourself when you are not sure of what I (if not others as well) am trying to say in a posting. I think, and I'm sure some will agree, that pointlessly flaming and/or belittling me/other posters only serves to discourage would-be contributors to the Digest, which benefits no one. As it is, this message is wasting valuable space that someone could have used for a more Telcom-realted posting, which I'm sure everyone would much rather read. I sincerely hope that I don't have to waste my and everyone else's time responding to something like Mr. Myerston's post again... Sorry for any typos and for a general waste of bandwidth... -Doug "tooooo cuuuuute" Reuben dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben%eagle.weslyn@wesleyan.edu (and just plain old "dreuben" to locals! :-) ) [Moderator's Note: However, I do not think divestiture can be blamed for the lack of training given to operators now. This has been a problem for the past twenty years, since about the time DDD was almost universal and the older ladies who had been with Mom all their working careers began to retire. Many of the newer operators do not consider it a lifetime *career* and it reflects in their work and their attitudes. Years ago, the majority of the operators had many years experience, with manual exchanges, yet! And did you know the rule for many years was a new operator was *never* permitted to work a real board until after several weeks of training at a 'teaching board' under the close watch of the supervisor and/or Chief Operator. Bell was *very particular* in the old days about the help. PT]