Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus Message-ID: Date: 12 Sep 89 03:10:37 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 129 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 367, message 1 of 4 In article myerston@cts.sri.com writes: > At least >some< of GTE's service problems are the result of > equipment provided (foisted?) by the infamous Automatic Electric and > its successors. While I have great respect for the quality of Western Electric apparatus, I have an equal degree of respect for the quality of apparatus manufactured by the various GTE operations, having had firsthand experience with the products of both organizations. In particular, I take exception to your use of the term "infamous" as applied to Automatic Electric. I will provide a bit of historical perspective before delving into more contemporary issues. First, I would like to point out that the Automatic Electric Co. (A.E.Co.) started out in 1901 as the successor to the Strowger Automatic Telephone Exchange Co., which was formed in 1891 by Almon B. Strowger. Strowger was the inventor of the first practicable telephone switching system, commonly referred to as step-by-step (SxS). The Bell System and Western Electric (WECO) had no automatic switching apparatus to speak of until they _literally_ learned the art from A.E.Co. Beginning shortly after World War I, AT&T (i.e., the Bell System and WECO) began a major effort to install SxS systems designed and manufactured by A.E.Co. A.E.Co. began a major training program for AT&T personnel, starting with 40 Bell System engineers in Chicago in 1919. While WECO did introduce the panel switching system during the mid-1920's, panel was never economically viable for central offices of less than 3,000 lines. There are also many qualified people (especially within the Bell System!) who will state that the panel CO was the most mechanically complex and unreliable switching apparatus ever built. A.E.Co. later licensed various patents to WECO, which then began manufacturing SxS apparatus on its own beginning in the 1920's. However, at various times right up to and including the 1950's, the Bell System purchased SxS apparatus directly from A.E.Co. There were a significant number of SxS CO's installed by the Bell System in small communities following World War II which utilized A.E.Co. apparatus, most commonly the A.E.Co. 35E97 SxS system. The central office area where I live, Clarence Center, NY, was first installed by New York Telephone as an A.E.Co. 35E97 office. So, the point is: before one blatantly bashes GTE/A.E.Co. on the quality of their switching apparatus, don't forget they were in the automatic telephone switching business long before WECO! 1/2 :-) If one were to compare SxS apparatus manufactured by A.E.Co. and WECO, they would be virtually indistinguishable - both from an appearance and from a quality standpoint. The only significant difference between the two manufacturers is in the supporting trunk circuits which are mounted in 19 or 23 inch wide apparatus frames. A.E.Co. apparatus has always used round coil, flat-spring relays for both switching and trunk apparatus, whereas WECO used round coil, flat-spring relays (220-series) just for SxS switches, with trunk apparatus originally using U- and Y-series flat spring relays, followed by introduction of wire-spring relays in the mid-1950's. WECO also introduced wire-wrap terminals on relays, other components and terminal blocks during the 1950's, which was several years before A.E.Co. introduced the same style connections. From an overall quality standpoint, in my humble opinion A.E.Co. SxS apparatus is on par with that of WECO. Period. With respect to overall quality of CO switching apparatus newer than SxS, in my humble opinion GTE/A.E.Co. has been on par with that of WECO. In particular, I refer to A.E.Co. apparatus such as the analog No. 1 EAX and No. 2 EAX, and the digital GTD-3 EAX and GTD-5 EAX. The first electronic switching product of WECO was the 1ESS, first installed at Morris, IL from 1960 to 1962, and made commercially available in 1965. The first electronic switching product of A.E.Co. was the No. 1 EAX first installed at Portage, IN in 1965 and made commercially available with an installation in St. Petersburg, FL in 1972. The No. 1 EAX used integrated circuits and was a generation newer than 1ESS when it was made commercially available in 1972. The first WECO apparatus to make extensive use of integrated circuits was the 2ESS, which was not made commercially available until 1973 (it was first field tested in Oswego, IL in late 1970). > When I worked at Western Electric it seemed like the most > satisfying jobs were those where we replaced AE equipment with ESS > machines (1A ESS at that time) for GTE of California. We did several > in Southern California (Long Beach, LA-Stadium) and the immediate > improvements brought in commendations, editorials etc. By contrast > PacBell jobs (usually X-Bar replacements) went largely unnoticed. I rather doubt that replacement of A.E.Co. SxS apparatus with ESS was any more "satisfying" than replacing WECO 350 or 355A SxS with ESS. There is no comparison between the lack of SxS features when compared to those available with ESS. With respect to the replacement of crossbar apparatus with ESS, most crossbar CO's (even No. 1 crossbar) were already modified for DTMF service by the early 1970's. The offering of previously unavailable DTMF service would probably be most noticeable to any customer following an ESS conversion. With respect to other GTE manufacturing organizations, GTE/Lenkurt is probably the largest single manufacturer of microwave, FDM multiplex, T1 and fiber optic apparatus in the U.S., with the possible exception of WECO. I am not certain why GTE operating companies have been singled out for bashing in this forum, but I suspect that IN TRUTH their problems are no worse than those of any Bell operating companies. GTE, as an overall operating telephone company, is as well organized as AT&T, and maintains uniform standards, practices and procedures as well as AT&T. Now, in my opinion, if you want to see telephone central office which is real trash, just look at some of the apparatus that has been turned out by Stromberg-Carlson (like X-Y, their original progressive switching apparatus, some of which is still in service), or that turned out by ITT (their Pentaconta crossbar switching office, as an example). In closing I would like to point out that I own no stock in GTE, and I am not their spokesperson. I am simply trying to give matters some perspective and to be fair. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" [Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell -- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any truth to that? PT]