Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: apple!zygot!john@decwrl.dec.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Consumer Opts For POTS Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 89 08:21:28 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: ATI Wares Team Lines: 57 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 217, message 5 of 10 In article , 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 !