Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Unequal Service Message-ID: Date: 23 Oct 89 19:09:28 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 23 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 470, message 5 of 8 Even for days following the 5:04 pm shock, dialtone was agonizingly slow in the crossbar offices, while electronic offices seemed to be unaffected. This brings up an issue: even for basic service, there are unequal levels even though customers pay equally. As an incentive to upgrade, I would propose that anyone served out of an electromechanical office be charged some fixed amount less than "equivalent" service out of an electronic office. For those of you served by real telcos who upgraded long ago, this is not an issue. But there are many prefixes in San Jose alone still "served" (term loosely used) by #5 grossbar. Pac*Bell needs some kind of incentive to get its act together. My mother's telephone is connected to crossbar and she thought that her phone was knocked out for days. She didn't know that she could have used it by simply waiting the two or three minutes for dialtone. And we're talking days after the event. Are there any other telcos out there that seem to feel that crossbar is appropriate for telephony as we move into the '90s? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !