Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California Message-ID: Date: 16 Sep 89 23:33:45 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 102 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 383, message 1 of 7 In article john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I was fascinated by Mr. Lippman's interesting history and spirited > defense of GTE. Unfortunately it doesn't explain away reality. > ... > We moved to southern California and in GTE land we were shocked. We > learned what it's like to not have calls routinely completed. We even > complained to repair and were told, "Oh, that's normal. You know, > we're so heavily overloaded." Interesting that neighboring areas > served by Pacific Telephone didn't have those problems. For the past few days I have been trying to determine how to respond to your statements, and until today have been at a loss for words. I admit that I have had no firsthand experience with GTE in California, but I have had considerable experience with GTE elsewhere, and I have known a number of people in both the GTE manufacturing organizations and in their operating telephone companies. What you relate is simply contrary to what I have personally experienced. Its sounds like GTE has let their CO apparatus go to hell in the proverbial handbasket. I will defend to my death that SxS apparatus, while hardly state-of-the-art, is actually rather reliable - PROVIDED that it has been cleaned, oiled, routined and otherwise maintained. It sounds like such maintenance was simply not performed, which indicates some serious lack of CO personnel and serious lack of responsible management for a telephone company. The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these service problems. Now, the burning question is how could GTE allow this to happen in California? The most reasonable answer just appeared in telecom article by goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com, and boils down to not having enough revenue to operate a telephone company in a reasonable manner. $> The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel) $> very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below $> everybody else. When most states were allowing 13% and California was $> allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in? To make matters worse, $> C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI $> even more. $> $> AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go $> down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate $> of return. But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave $> the state pretty much what it paid for. > Ask anyone who has had any *real experience* and they will tell you > the truth about AE directorized SXS. I sat in Los Gatos for several > hours one day and determined that AE step has about an 80% call > completion average. Not really impressive. When I called to complain I > was told that the problem was with the "old" equipment that would soon > be replaced. Actually, most central offices are designed with an overall grade of service between .01 and .001. This means that it is "acceptable" for between 1-call-in-100 and 1-call-in-1000 being lost due to equipment failure or trunk blockage. Prior to ESS, a .01 grade of service was not uncommon. So, your apparent grade of service was .2; it could have been a .3, and therefore worse. :-) > When they installed their highly-touted 1EAX we were all told, as Mr. > Lippman pointed out, that this equipment was more advanced than the ESS > being used by Bell in the surrounding areas. Why then did it routinely > crash, not offer most features available in Pac*Bell, and find itself > already on the replacement list if it was so wonderful? Beats the hell outta me... I have seen the No. 1 EAX, and it is not junk. I don't know why there was trouble in this particular office, unless it was a very early machine (say, before 1974). Part of the problem may be the CO personnel being inadequately trained. ESS has been a real culture shock for older SxS switchmen who have learned their trade solely through on-the-job experience. It is pretty difficult to teach the use of an oscilloscope to someone whose principal troubleshooting tools have been a test lamp and test receiver for the past 25 years. I have personally seen a case where an "older generation" SxS switchman destroyed half the MF receivers and all of the spare boards in a CO because he was trying to examine TTL levels with a test lamp, one side of which was connected to -48 volts! Despite what appeared to be adequate training, this fellow really never understood what he was doing. > Glossary term for the day: > subscriber carrier; GTE's answer to undercapitalization The Bell System has also used subscriber line carrier of the lowest quality - the infamous Superior/Continental AML. This subscriber line carrier provides no bridged ringing (ringing is brought out on a third wire), and offers an on-hook loop voltage to the subscriber station of a whole 6 volts (less, if the battery ain't charged). Needless to say, such subscriber line carrier at best can operate a 500-type set, and nothing else. <> 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?"