5963 computer grade dual triode production dates 3516

As I've noted, exaggeration isn't going to win points. The *fact* is that Sprint implemented SS7 before AT&T did. That is no reason to gratuitously bash them with crude terms and outright lies.

You seem to have a tendency to do that. MCI, Alascom, Sprint, GTE, Nortel... you've pretty much lashed out at everyone that you didn't work for.

Did you notice who I take swipes at? I'm not guessing about all those companies that I was not part of, I'm laying it on the ones that I *do* know, because I was there and getting paid by them to do dumb things. And I don't know about you, but I wasn't winning any friends by quietly doing the dumb things either. I kicked and screamed and nobody doubted that I thought it was dumb *at* *the* *time*. (What I wonder now, is how many of those idiots who didn't get the picture 15 years ago have ever suddenly realized they *were* wrong. I expect most of them still don't have a clue what was happening or why.)

I'm sorry, you missed the point. We don't really need to itemize what they failed at. I had said they failed at management, and you said I was wrong, and then you said it was just poor management. You're arguing in circles.

Whatever, you do have an interesting list.

Down to that point, they aren't different than any other telephone company in the US.

One of the funniest (i.e., most disgusting...) tales I ever heard was that just after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound in March 1989, as Alascom was setting up microwave systems, including one of those transportable earth stations, the VP of Operations was quoted, as he stood with a crew on some high ground looking down on the wreck, as saying that this cellular stuff was a "pbutting fad" that would never be worth anything. Somebody had stated that it sure would be useful right then and there, and that was his response.

He also said we would never have PC's in the work place, because "technicians would play with them".

That same VP, in maybe 1991 or 2, when I suggested to him that we should be getting into the Internet business, said "What for???"

Welcome to a Dilbert Cartoon... typical telco management.

But, lets face it, that was an old tradition with the Bell System. Don't forget that they bought WECo too... :-)

That's one I know nothing about. I'll take your word for it, despite the various silly things you've said. It just rings true... :-)

Well, you are certainly dead on there!

Those were all pretty shameful, given what they *could* have done. I'm don't think Allen was wrong to buy them, but he was certainly unable to manage them.

Again, those I'll take your word for. I always figure that McCaw was just another deal like NCR, where if it had been managed properly there would have been good returns.

Absolutely true. I thought at the time that that was just about the dumbest thing I'd ever heard.

Exactly. And you are contradicting yourself. That is what I said to begin with, and you said I was wrong...

You like listing details, but had missed the significance of what those details add up to.

...

Well gee whiz. What else is there?

Ahem, you must be unaware of Bell System history! That was *always* the way it was. The favored companies did well, because they could get funding for virtually anything they asked for. The others played catch up, and usually didn't get anything funded until it was impossible to avoid an upgrade.

And WECo was the way the accountants balanced the books.

And of course AT&T Long Lines was always the most favored.

After divesbreasture the only difference was that the same mentality applied to departments and regions rather than to separate companies.

True enough. But, as noted, all of that is not Allen's contribution, but merely a continuation of what existed previously. Allen's failure to *change* it was his downfall.

That's not the way I understand it was.

The best thing about Armstrong was that he didn't have a clue about telecom! That is *exactly* why he got the job. He was *supposed* to wrest control away from the good ol' boys doing it the Long Lines way.

...

Look, I was *there* at the time. I was dealing with several companies using NTI based switching systems. You're blowing smoke on that one. Dump it.

I don't agree with that at all. First, NTI was no less expensive that AT&T. Second, I would have to agree with the idea of getting WECo installers *out* rather than in. And NTI *did* provide competent installation for DMS switching systems.

The main reason companies chose NTI, other than the political motivations to get away from AT&T, was just some damned good marketing that NTI did at the time. They totally emphasized the DMS as "maintenance free". It wasn't entirely true, but it was close enough that the difference didn't phase anybody's budget.

Except I don't think you are accurately describing SBC's experience. Not even close. If that were true NTI would have lost virtually *all* of their customer base in the late 80's and early 90's. They didn't.

Besides, *I* worked on DMS switching systems for several years, and I can flat tell you that what you claimed is not just untrue, it is abjectly silly.

No, that isn't what it was. It was the same lunk headed atbreastude *you* are demonstrating. They thought they *had* to have a 4E to interface Alaska to their network. The question was whether to install one or use the Seattle switch to do it. They actually thought they were doing everyone here a favor when they decided to put it in Alaska. The original plan was to install the 4E and get rid of the DMS-200. It don't work that way... the 4E can't do what a DMS-200 can do.

In fact, 1) they didn't need it, and 2) if they had decided on the Seattle switch they would have then been force to lay more fiber in a relatively short time. The decision they made was the worst possible choice.

That had been going on for *decades*. Allen inherited the system.

Actually, that isn't true, because they didn't. Most of them continued to buy from AT&T. What was interesting was that virtually none of the independents went with AT&T (until years later when the 5E finally caught up with the DMS).

Exactly. GTE of course held out for years because the that god-awful switch they made themselves. So they weren't part of the market share war for more than a decade.

Look, stop trying to blow smoke up everyone's rear end. It won't fly. Simply put, if SBC had the problems you described it was *clearly* their fault. Others didn't have the same, and frankly I doubt that SBC did either.

Okay, so SBC had poor network engineering-admin-management. That isn't a switch manufacturers problem!

I *know* you are clueless about that. Northern Telecom Inc had a *much* better reputation in regard to software than did AT&T. The software tools for network maintenance were significantly better.

Of course that was often coupled with typical Bell System mentality, which didn't allow craftspeople to actually *use* the tools provided, simply because if it wasn't precisely described in a maintenance manual, they fired people for doing it. Since the DMS was supposed to be maintenance free, NTI did not document anything not on a menu and used for network administration. Hence the command line interface, the text editor, etc. etc. were all totally *undocumented*. Because of that, many operating companies would fire any craftperson who used them.

On the other hand, I wrote dozens of really fun shell scripts. It took digging out maintenance tapes and looking at every example of shell programming from Northern that I could find, in order to learn what their shells (there were actually two of them available) would do.

It was better than that, then! We had an engineer who spent a lot of time at Research Triangle in Raleigh, and was not abashed about writing software patches for the DMS-200 himself.

I can just imagine the likelihood that anyone in an operating company *ever* wrote a patch for the OS of an AT&T switch!

As noted, I think you are describing a PB problem, not a NTI problem.

Yes, GTE steered clear of *everyone* for quite a few years.

I don't know what motivated them when they did start buying other switching systems, but my guess is that they actually did do the right thing, and bought basically which ever it was that the switch would interface with. Here in Alaska they went totally with DMS-10 switches, including the one here in Barrow (where originally, back in the early or mid 80's, the had put in a Vidar digital switch!).

How is that different than any others? I fail to see where DMS switching systems are the fault!

It is fairly obvious that you don't know *anything* about them, but do have a typical Bell System mind set. Tsk tsk... ;-)

We do emphatically agree on some things! Thumbing our collective noses at the history of the industry, with bitterness caused by knowing what *could* have been, isn't as common as it should be. For that I do salute your vastly superior perception of where the Hell we were all those years! I may disagree on some of the details, but we do have the same basic view (i.e., the same heads lined up in our sights, for whenever we get a chance to do a little head bashing).

--