5963 computer grade dual triode production dates 3514

You aren't gaining much credibility. That was mid to late 1970's technology (using California Microwave Inc's analog earth station equipment), and it also happened to be one of the few things they ever did that was engineered well! (How it came to be engineered well though, is a different story...)

You know that prior to the first Gulf War, AT&T subcontracted with Alascom to provide portable earth stations for the US military in the Gulf? AT&T had the DoD contract, but could not accomplish that particular part of the requirement. It was a very happy arrangement...

But when the actual war business started, the US military need more, and they let contracts to just about any company willing to give it a try. I can recall reading in some telephony magazine about MCI setting up a transportable earth station, and bragging for all they were worth about hitting the ground running and having a functional satellite station up and running in three weeks.

I'd have been a lot more impressed if I had never *personally* set up one of the Alascom portable earth stations in less than 3 *hours*. Just two people, one comm tech and one facilities mechanic, could literally put one up, and have it back down and ready to travel before lunch and then do it again after lunch and be ready to go home. (I know, because I did it one time in the parking lot of the Alascom facility in Fairbanks back in the late 1980's.)

I'll stand by my concept of causation and timing, though I'll admit there isn't actually much difference between what you are saying and what I said. Why you call one description of it "all wrong", and then just use different words to describe the same thing, I don't know. I'm just not as given to sensationalizing it with conspiracy theories as you are! I don't really think Stahl and 60 minutes had that much to do with it, and I do think the Board of Directors were fed up to here with the continued good ol' boy fraternity of AT&T Long Lines that lingered with a tight grip on upper management.

Upper management failed to do *what*?

Upper management failed to do *what*???? (Yes, to demonstrate any vision at all when it comes to modern technology!)

Look, this is a company where line supervisors don't make decisions that are not approved 3 levels above them.

District manager might well have been complaining, but they were forced to get approval from New Jersey before they allowed the toilet paper to be changed in the restrooms. And yes that does lead to confusion in which low life technicians start figuring out ways to make things work anyway. And technicians making decisions (any decision) was just a horrible concept within AT&T!

If PB did that, it certainly was *not* due to any lack of reliability or support *from NTI*. It might well be PB didn't have a clue about how to interface with them.

Keep in mind that as far as I know even today there is not one single 5E in Alaska (if there is, it came sometime in the last 4 years). *Everyone* here, from LECs to IXCs to the military is using DMS switching systems. You can try blowing all the smoke you want about reliability, but the *facts* are not as you say.

The difference of course is that Alaska never was integrated with Bell System management, and had no reason to put politics in front of everything else when it came to purchasing equipment. That didn't happen here until AT&T bought Alascom and installed a 4E where none was needed, except in the minds of upper management.

A DMS-200 cannot do end office functions. That requires a DMS-100, by definition. If a DMS-200 is so equipped, it is called a DMS-100-200. I've worked on them.

The DMS-200 is "a huge toll switch, period. Next?".

Exactly. The DMS system actually was, right from the beginning, far more versatile. Between the 4E and the 5E there is still not full coverage of what the DMS system can do, but that is primarily a case of AT&T not needing facilities that the 4E does not provide, while DMS of course has virtually all of the non-AT&T tandem market, and naturally builds whatever their customers need (just at Lucent does for AT&T).

There is no point in being silly by trying to exaggerate. The DMS-200 in the Anchorage toll center has been there for more than 20 years. There are hundreds of installed DMS switching system that are now over 20 years old.

There is no reason any of the DMS switching systems cannot be used for 20-30 years, unless the operating company simply fails to keep up with major engineering modifications to the point where it becomes impossible to run current software.

Nortel's move into non-telecom networking certainly has had an effect. But that is not a reflection on the capability of the DMS switches as opposed to Lucent switches.

Yes, AT&T is the only company that was ever interested in a 4E, and virtually everyone else bought DMS-200's. I don't know if you are aware of it, but the DMS-100 and the DMS-200 are mostly identical, with different hardware modules and different software modules for lines and trunks respectively. The front end, for example, is different only in the name tag...

As I noted, I don't see either system as being significantly better than the other. A company that has an ongoing relationship with either Lucent or Nortel is going to continue to expand using equipment from the same source.

--