bet@bent (Bennett Todd) (06/11/89)
In-reply-to: decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) In article <telecom-v09i0192m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>, decvax!decwrl!apple! zygot!john@ucbvax (John Higdon) writes: >[...] >Most of the consumer advocates that I have spoken with, however, seem to >feel that adequate telephone service consists of a black rotary-dial wall >phone in the kitchen and the fact that there is a hell of a lot of >electro-mechanical equipment that needs replacing is of no concern to them. Count me as a consumer that feels the same way. Touch Tone (tm?) is nice but by no means necessary, and none of the other features interest me at all. However, I can see for myself that I am severely outvoted on this preference; the phone feature fiends are making sure that my service gets more and more expensive, and less and less reliable. I've seen it at work, and I've seen it at home. In fact, I've discontinued having any service at all at home, and have started using email more and more to carry on important communications, since, unreliable though it is, it works more reliably than our new super spiffy digital AT&T PBX with LEDs and whatnot. Our old electromechanical system worked vastly better. Unfortunately, we reached its limits, and it is no longer supported, and cannot be expanded. So we get a lot more exercise now, which is good; it is easier and faster to walk down the hall, or indeed across campus, than to try to get out using the spiffy new digital phones (with LEDs). -Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu
john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) (06/13/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0193m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bet@bent (Bennett Todd) writes: > Our old electromechanical system worked vastly better. Please, please, no yearning for the good old days of electo-mechanical! Let's see...on SXS you would frequently get on a noisy stepper and hear crackling noises all through your converstation, punctuated and modulated by other subscribers dialing. Wonderful. The equivalent in Xbar is a sproinging noise at random. Great. Another joy of Xbar is what we call the "killer trunk". Occasionally, someone would call, you would talk, then hang up. And your phone would be stuck for hours. No dial tone, busy to incoming calls. Try to get 611 to fix that (it's intermittant). In fact, I have learned that most COs now turn off the trouble recorder on Xbar; they haven't a clue as to what to do when it drops a card anyway. We nasty people who want features are actually *reducing* the cost to the black rotary-dial customer. It costs the telco nothing to provide call waiting or three way or forwarding, but they not only collect our money for the service, they get more completed calls, timed calls on hold, etc., etc. Over half of my recurring monthly charges is for "advanced" features. Any CO upgrading costs are quickly recovered, not only from these charges, but from the reduced maintenance and plant staff required. Now tell me who is paying for it! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) (06/24/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0205m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, decvax!decwrl!apple! zygot!john@ucbvax (John Higdon) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0193m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bet@bent (Bennett Todd) >writes: >> Our old electromechanical system worked vastly better. > >Please, please, no yearning for the good old days of electo-mechanical! >[describes various line-quality deficiencies, maintenance troubles] > Any CO upgrading costs are quickly recovered, not >only from these charges, but from the reduced maintenance and plant >staff required. > >Now tell me who is paying for it! I'm paying for it. I get to pay more and more for service that is less and less reliable, to the point where I finally decided to shut the danged thing off (which has turned out to be *wonderful* -- I'd never get it switched back on, even if they reduced their rates and got their service stabilized and reliable). And I'm paying for it. Our new super-spiffy AT&T digital PBX has amazing features -- when it works. Half the time my phone won't ring when callers try to reach me, and I have to get the guy who is attempting to administrate this system to re-initialize my line, since its parameters are getting hosed somehow. If they could have maintained as reliable and straightforward a level of service, while adding new features and improving maintainability, then I'd be delighted. As it is, they are adding new features and improving their maintainability, at the expense of reliability and simplicity of use. However, I am enjoying the chance to learn that I don't need to be so dependant on a telephone; it is wonderful not having one at home, and at work I can walk down the hall, or across campus, or (if it is long distance) walk to a local mini-mart and use their pay phone. It's a good thing they are recovering more money from the folks who enjoy exploiting the features; they are certainly losing POTS-lovers as they leave in disgust. -Bennett, still unrepentant for his heresy bet@orion.mc.duke.edu
john@decwrl.dec.com (John Higdon) (06/27/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0211m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) writes: > [regarding who's really paying for switching upgrades] > I'm paying for it. I get to pay more and more for service that is less > and less reliable, to the point where I finally decided to shut the > danged thing off (which has turned out to be *wonderful* -- I'd never > get it switched back on, even if they reduced their rates and got their > service stabilized and reliable). Then your problem is incompetent installation/service people. Even the relatively crummy 1ESS in my CO is vastly superior to the crossbar it replaced. It is more reliable, it is faster, and it is capable of all "modern" features. Are you claiming that phone service is universally going to hell because of electronic and digital switching? That's baloney. > And I'm paying for it. Our new super-spiffy AT&T digital PBX has amazing > features -- when it works. Half the time my phone won't ring when > callers try to reach me, and I have to get the guy who is attempting to > administrate this system to re-initialize my line, since its parameters > are getting hosed somehow. Find some competent people to operate and maintain your equipment. Your anecedotal accounts of *one* bad installation can hardly be considered an authoritative assessment of the future of telephony. > If they could have maintained as reliable and straightforward a level of > service, while adding new features and improving maintainability, then > I'd be delighted. As it is, they are adding new features and improving > their maintainability, at the expense of reliability and simplicity of > use. Of course, the reverse is true. With the self-diagnostics and lack of mechanical unreliability, newer switching equipment is an *order of magnitude* MORE reliable and capable of providing basic telephone service. By your argument, we should all go back to horse-drawn carts because you bought a lemon automobile. > However, I am enjoying the chance to learn that I don't need to be so > dependant on a telephone; it is wonderful not having one at home, and at > work I can walk down the hall, or across campus, or (if it is long > distance) walk to a local mini-mart and use their pay phone. I, on the other hand, rely a great deal on the telephone for both work and play. That is why I welcome the new technology with open arms. Hell, why not just do away with automatic switching and go back to operators? > It's a good thing they are recovering more money from the folks who > enjoy exploiting the features; they are certainly losing POTS-lovers as > they leave in disgust. Turn out the lights when you leave. (Or should I say "blow out the lamps"?) -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) (06/30/89)
In-reply-to: apple!zygot!john@decwrl.dec.com (John Higdon) In article <telecom-v09i0211m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, I wrote a fairly deliberately inflammatory overstatement of how bad the local telco and the new departmental PBX have been at providing POTS. In article <telecom-v09i0217m05@vector.dallas.tx.us>, apple!zygot!john@decwrl (John Higdon) writes a fairly reasonable rebuttal, which I liked. He rightly pointed out that I am wide of the mark criticising the technology; what is happening here is inept installation and maintenance. However, I would tend to maintain that inept handling of installation and support of the new digital technologies is extremely common. What I've seen in the circumstances I enjoy matches what I've heard and read about in other places. Faced with costs rising on all sides, a telco buys a new switch (or an organization buys a new PBX) on cost savings grounds, and fails to plan for the necessary (but hopefully temporary) increased manpower costs of additional training and whatnot to manage the switchover gracefully; instead of delivering improved performance, they deliver an immediate severe degradation, which may or may not settle out over time and eventually leave the customers better off. I would hazard that the smart money is on "not". This kind of situation, where a new technology offers real improvements, but is so over-hyped that switchover is botched, is responsible for a large proportion of the traffic on RISKS digest. To provide more detail, the problems at home were mostly of the "incoming callers get forwarded to never-never land", and "no dial tone" variety, and are easily explained by a badly overloaded and somewhat ineptly programmed switch. I am sure that they aren't intrinsic to the new technology; however I am also sure that it isn't coincidence that they came bundled in with it. The problems at work are even more blatently obvious; we hit the capacity of our very old switch, and had to buy a new one (we couldn't even get our current one properly maintained, never mind expanding it). Simultaneously and completely independantly, we had a problem with too few operators, not well enough trained. The new PBX was sold to the folks in the business office who chose it partially on the claim that its new features would allow a smaller number of operators to be able to handle more traffic efficiently, since the operator's console interaction was more streamlined. This may be true; however, in the face of a shortage of operators, and extant problems with their level of training, the new technology exacerbated the existing difficulties. So on one hand I agree that I am wrong to criticise the new digital telephony innovations; they really are technologically superior. I still maintain that I am not imagining the problems they have brought. Even though these problems are a consequence of bad planning decisions, if they commonly accompany "upgrades" to digital switches then they have to be counted as part of the cost of the newer technology. Technological innovation doesn't exist in a vacuum; evaluation of costs and benefits has to take into account the people in the situation, and how they will handle the changes. I am griping that the changes to newer telephony switching systems are often handled extremely poorly, enough to produce an overall severe drop in functionality delivered to the customers. -Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu
ggw@wolves.UUCP (Gregory G. Woodbury) (07/02/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0217m05@vector.dallas.tx.us> apple!zygot!john@decwrl. dec.com (John Higdon) writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0211m06@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bet@orion.mc.duke.edu >(Bennett Todd) writes: >> [regarding who's really paying for switching upgrades] >> I'm paying for it. I get to pay more and more for service that is less >> and less reliable, to the point where I finally decided to shut the >> danged thing off Bennett is (of course) entitled to his opinion, but he does have a real reason to complain. Duke University and Durham NC have a rather interesting set of telephone interactions. Durham (a satrapy of GTE South) has a relatively bad service reputation. The area is undergoing a period of rapid growth and new CO numbers are being opened rather quickly. As they open the new numbers, they are not necessarily installing new switches. Some parts of town get modern equipment and good service, and other parts get stuck with the older stuff. In fact, I can generally know how reliable the service to a given number is going to be by just the CO code. I even asked specifically to have my service provided by one of the new COs. Going from my home to Duke, or any computers in the newer COs will be fairly good (only fair :-( ) but bbs's in other COs are subject to the }}i}} type interference. I don't know the particulars of the actual switches, but they aren't AT&T. >Then your problem is incompetent installation/service people. Even the >relatively crummy 1ESS in my CO is vastly superior to the crossbar it >replaced. It is more reliable, it is faster, and it is capable of all >"modern" features. Yes, we do have most "modern" features, why just last month they announced that they could now offer temporary cancellation of call waiting! (I do want to thank the Digest/newsgroup for giving us the ammunition necessary to get this "new feature" made available.) >> And I'm paying for it. Our new super-spiffy AT&T digital PBX has amazing >> features -- when it works. Half the time my phone won't ring when >> callers try to reach me, and I have to get the guy who is attempting to >> administrate this system to re-initialize my line, since its parameters >> are getting hosed somehow. >Find some competent people to operate and maintain your equipment. This is easier said than done. Duke University's phone system is almost totally independent of the Durham phone system. It even has its own tarriff hearings before the state PUC. It has 3 CO codes (684,681,680) and leases ists own set of AT&T LD access trunks. Early this year, the University cut over to a 5ESS all digital switch. This has brought the usual set of settling in bugs. The AT&T PBX that Bennett complains about is the PBX for the Department of Radiology in the Medical Center and is actually on the floor next to the 5ESS (I think, it may be in the hospital, Bennett?) Being an independent entity, yet committed to AT&T equipment, Duke has to compete in the market for technical people, but can only bid (substantially) lower academic salaries. Occasionally, Duke can manage to get some good people and hold onto them, but most of the phone crafts are .... >> If they could have maintained as reliable and straightforward a level of >> service, while adding new features and improving maintainability, then >> I'd be delighted. > >Of course, the reverse is true. With the self-diagnostics and lack of >mechanical unreliability, newer switching equipment is an *order of >magnitude* MORE reliable and capable of providing basic telephone >service. > Duke and Durham have phone systems in transition, ISDN is going to be here (sometime) and that will be a "Good Thing" for some, but others are just too confused to deal with it. "bet" is really just frustrated by technology that doesn't work right.