telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) (12/14/88)
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) announced on Tuesday that it was selling its Rolm telephone equipment subsidiary to West Germany's Siemens AG. Rolm has lost several hundred million dollars since IBM bought it in 1984 for $1.5 billion. Rolm was the first, or one of the first companies to market digital PBX systems. As most readers of [Telecom Digest] already know, the PBX market has been very soft for years. It has suffered from little or no growth and very bitter price competition. Siemens, a leading PBX supplier in Europe wants to bolster its sales in the United States, and believes it can do so by aquiring Rolm's sales and service operations. Quite obviously, it will also gain access to some of the lucrative IBM customers in Europe. Rolm was an early leader in digital PBX's, but they were surpassed in 1984 by AT&T and Northern Telecom Ltd. of Canada. Part of the strategy behind IBM's purchase of Rolm was IBM's belief that small personal computers would be linked through digital PBX's. Although this has happened, most businesses seem to prefer ethernet arrangements; something neither IBM or Rolm had given much thought to. IBM was certain the late 1980's would see office computers everywhere hooked up through PBX's. IBM made a mistake, and at Tuesday's press conference they admitted it and announced that Rolm was going bye-bye, as part of the corporate restructuring which has seen IBM divest itself of numerous non-computer related businesses in the past several months. From its beginning until 1984, Rolm could not run itself very well; now IBM has washed its corporate hands. Time will tell how much luck the Europeans have with it. Patrick Townson
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/14/88)
If you'd actually used a Rolm phone switch, you'd know why they lost money on it. People expect their telephone service to be reliable. In addition to horrendous start up bugs on all the installations I've watched, the thing managed to scrog traditional modem connections run through it. Nearly half of the University Problems session at the last Share (a independent IBM mainframe users group) was devoted to ROLM telephone problems. -Ron
chip@vector (12/15/88)
telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) writes in v08i0200m01: >International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) announced on Tuesday that it >was selling its Rolm telephone equipment subsidiary to West Germany's >Siemens AG. I wonder how this will impact the future of NetView, IBM's communication network management product. My understanding is that it's roots come from SNA network managment, but IBM had big plans of establishing this as the standard for telecommunication network management. Although I have never used it, my impression is that nobody likes it but a lot of folks were moving to support it because of IBM's muscle in making it a standard. I wonder if NetView will continue to be a product, and if so, how IBM's exit from the PBX market will impact it's attempt to rally support for NetView as a standard. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | Choke me in the shallow water Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | before I get too deep.
linimon@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Mark Linimon) (12/15/88)
In article <telecom-v08i0200m01@vector.UUCP> you write: >From its beginning until 1984, Rolm could not run itself very well; now >IBM has washed its corporate hands. > >Patrick Townson To represent not my own, but the opinions of (several) ex-ROLMers: Rolm wasn't doing so badly until IBM starched all the collars. At that point many of the "good folks" departed. Mark Linimon Mizar, Inc. uucp: {convex, killer}!mizarvme!linimon disclaimer: not only not Mizar's opinion but also not necessarily my own.
dsmythe@cup.portal.com (12/18/88)
> [Ron Natalie says:] >If you'd actually used a Rolm phone switch, you'd know >why they lost money on it. Everyone in the industry is losing money on PBXs now. > People expect their telephone service to be reliable. Was this a redundant switch? Multinode? Single node? > In addition to horrendous start >up bugs on all the installations I've watched, the thing >managed to scrog traditional modem connections run through >it. I use data-switching all the time with no problems. What kind of machines are you referring to? Is it a CBX 8000, 9000 or a 9751? The 9751 is quite an improvement from a maintenance standpoint. Also, you must draw distinctions between attached telecom hardware and the CBX itself. Could the problems be with your modem configuration (not the modem itself, but the way the system is set up)? Just curious. Dave Smythe dsmythe@cup.portal.com N.B.: I speak for myself alone.
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/23/88)
The Rolm switch that I heard the complaints about had redundant modules. Evidentally the system decides at 2 AM to switch the active and back up modules. Great, but it doesn't do anything to check to see if the backup module is working and hence the thing crashes when you switch the load to it. As far as modems, I'm talking about traditional dialup modems routed over Rolm voice lines, not the Rolm Data Creature. -Ron
dsmythe@cup.portal.com (12/27/88)
> - Ron Natalie says: >The Rolm switch that I heard the complaints about had redundant >modules. Evidentally the system decides at 2 AM to switch the >active and back up modules. Great, but it doesn't do anything >to check to see if the backup module is working and hence the >thing crashes when you switch the load to it. This still depends upon which switch (I think) but your statement isn't entirely accurate. If the other side has a history of failure, I believe that the switchover won't occur. Also, if it fails after the switchover it will switch back. In either case, you should not lose existing telephony while the switchover is in progress, but you won't be able to place any new calls until it is finished. (it is possible that the scenario is a little different on the CBX II 9000 and earlier -- anyone know?). Unless I'm mistaken this isn't likely the source of the problem >As far as modems, I'm talking about traditional dialup modems >routed over Rolm voice lines, not the Rolm Data Creature. Did your "source" specify why? Still have never heard of this happening -- (not that that means anything), but there isn't any differentiation that I know of within the switch between traditional dialup modems and voice calls. If you were dropping one, you'd be dropping the other. However, if the problem was due to external hardware, then it is possible (but then it's probably not the CBXs fault, is it? :-) Dave -Ron dsmythe@cup.portal.com My opinion is just that. I speak for no one else!
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/30/88)
Hey, I'm just relating what I heard at the "University Problems" session at the last Users' Group meeting. Since IBM no longer has ROLM, I doubt that the subject will ever come up again. There were exactly two issues that arose at that meeting. One was why IBM won't consider certain products (MVS and the XA versions of their operating systems) under the new University discount program (Universities don't do that, we were told) and problems with Rolm phone switches. Nobody spent more than 2 minutes talking about anything else. -Ron