37 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2018 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Sat, 29 Sep 2018
Volume 37 : Issue 233 : "text" format

Table of contents
Verizon Wireless says outage caused no widespread issues in Upstate NYBill Horne
Re: Finger PointingHAncock4
Fwd: Finger PointingFred Atkinson

Please send posts to telecom-digest.org, with userid set to telecomdigestsubmissions, or via Usenet to comp.dcom.telecom
The Telecom Digest is made possible by generous supporters like John Lewandowski

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20180928174402.GA6506@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:44:02 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Verizon Wireless says outage caused no widespread issues in Upstate NY By Geoff Herbert Verizon Wireless says it has resolved outages affecting large portions of the U.S., and says the outages caused no widespread issues in Upstate New York. Some Verizon customers complained Tuesday, saying they were unable to make and receive phone calls and texts. Some iPhone users said they were still able to send and receive iMessages, but texts to Android and other wireless devices were unable to connect. https://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2018/09/verizon_wireless_outages_ny.html -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <a46d4cce-59c1-47f6-8689-763d3aaac393@googlegroups.com> Date: 27 Sep 2018 13:40:26 -0700 From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: Finger Pointing On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:32:02 PM UTC-4, Bill Horne wrote: > For those of a certain age, "COAM" means "Customer Owned And > Maintained." Where I worked, the designation was mostly applied to > owners of COCOT (Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) pay phones, > and then to those who bought PBX (Private Branch eXchange) units from > a slew of fly-by-night vendors who cropped up after divestiture to > take advantage of the Bell System reputation for reliability, by > peddling sub-standard technology at exorbitant prices. ITT took out a full page ad in LIFE in 1970 for their electronic PBX. (page 24) https://books.google.com/books?id=lFUEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA24-IA2&dq=life%20epabx&pg=PA24-IA2#v=onepage&q&f=false Here is another one from 1982 for Code A Phone. https://books.google.com/books?id=LNdYqE1Su-AC&lpg=PA465&dq=aba%20pbx&pg=PA464#v=onepage&q&f=false In 1975 the Bell System had the Dimension electronic PBX (two documents) http://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/browse/catalogs-manuals-educational-docs-by-company/western-electric-bell-system/publications-and-educational-documents-by-date/blr/11707-75sep-blr-p316-dimension-pbx http://www.telephonecollectors.info/index.php/browse/catalogs-manuals-educational-docs-by-company/western-electric-bell-system/marketing-documents-by-date/309-dimension-electronic-pbx-series-100-400-and-2000 Just out of curiosity, would anyone have heard of these units and if they were any good, like their ads tout? In my own humble opinion as a worker-bee, many of these systems were overloaded with unnecessary features that most ordinary users never bothered to learn, much less utilize. One office I was in had call-pickup. It was rarely used, and often caused confusion when it was used. Indeed, some users had the call pickup feature turned off. Distinctive ringing caused confusion and was not liked. Today, amazingly many office employees do not even know how to transfer a call from one extension to another; a PBX function that's been around for 100 years. They just tell the caller to call back. When we got Centrex II 40 years ago, all we had to do was flask the hookswitch and dial the desired extension and hang up. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <ADC4FB5F-43FE-4D56-8FEB-B2DE5E51E9AD@mishmash.com> Date: 27 Sep 2018 12:26:46 -0700 From: "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson.remove-this@and-this-too.mishmash.com> Subject: Fwd: Finger Pointing Begin forwarded message: > From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> > Date: September 26, 2018 at 5:11:44 PM MST > To: telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.remove-this.telecom-digest.org. > Subject: Re: [Telecom] Finger Pointing > Reply-To: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> > Unfortunately, soon after Divestiture, many telecom businesses-- new > and old--changed their operating philosophy and consumers suffered as > a result. > > As a regulated monopoly, Bell was more engineering oriented and tended > to work hard for very high service standards. We all know their gear > lasted forever and generally their people were well trained and > helpful. (There were some exceptions over the years and in some > places). > > But after Divestiture, AT&T and the Baby Bells were now marketing > companies. They were out to make a buck. Suddenly, engineering took > a back seat to profit, and a fast profit at that. Cost- cutting > became a priority. Sales was a priority. Many dedicated well-trained > professional staff were replaced with salespeople on commission. They > didn't know anything about "ground start" nor did they care. They > wanted you to buy something and buy it now. Staff turnover was high. > This of course all applied to the newcomer carriers and suppliers as > well. The exceptions were a few folks who knew what they were doing > and could get something done. But for the customer, it was very > frustrating trying to get along until a competent person was found. My experience was that the frustration was around long before divestiture. I generally found telco persons (not all) to be arrogant, display an 'I know more than you know' attitude, and [generally] not really be listening to their customers. Many times the answer they would give me clearly demonstrated that they didn't really hear what I said or asked. Higher engineering standards, yes. But at the price of a totalitarian PSTN. Bell didn't seem to understand that the PSTN belonged to the public as they were the ones footing the bill. If you were not satisfied with the result or the overall service, you had nowhere else to go. Many times I wasn't satisfied at all. But I had no recourse other than to escalate through the PSC. Once I had other options (post divestiture), that changed. They were generally more receptive than before. But not all the time. Sometimes I took the other provider instead when I couldn't get a resolution from them. Sometimes I escalated through the PSC. That was drastic. But it worked when all else failed. Today, we have many options. That's a good thing. Fred ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Sat, 29 Sep 2018

Telecom Digest Archives