EuroISDN is different protocol-wise from US; and they wanted DSL to work over ISDN, so they did it.
In the US, Ma's bastard stepchildren had enough issues with ISDN at all so they didn't care to try adding DSL...
The screwups with ISDN predate the breakup. You can't blame them on Judge Greene. Also keep in mind that other countries have telecom markets as competitive if not more so than the US. To me the problem is primarily one of poor regulation by the FCC and states and short-term thinking by the telcos.
R's, John
The biggest problem is the lack of and or trained maintainers to work on this equipment. I worked on a project in Washington state a few years ago as a contractor and had to train Verizon people to work on the equipment I installed, years ago before I retired from GTE we had many schools, we also learned from older more experienced people; t hat is were I leaned most o what I know, but now it seem that they count more on contractors for everything. The California company had its own CO Installers back before I retired, but from what I can tell there are less then 10 left and they just handle the working contractors. Maintainers are covers many offices so there maybe no one there at times and at&t is the same way.
While you've gotten "The Real Truth(tm)" about the service, you haven't gotten it about the name. No, ISDN does NOT stand for "Integrated Services Digital Network." It really stands for (take your pick):
I See Dollars Now I Still Don't Know It Still Does Nothing Innovation Subscribers Don't Need
and I'm sure there are more that I can't recall....
-Gary
But there also some employees who have the legacy spirit of service who work hard to take care of the subscribers--to properly do an installation, debug a problem, patiently explain complex rates and services, etc.
[snip]
If we attempted to connect today's typical customer provided equipment to the Bell System of old, the old system would've crashed and burned for a variety of reasons.
The old Bell System was geared toward full responsibility end-to-end. Long Distance was a toll charge and they'd always credit you if a call failed. Lousy telephones and PBX networks cause me constant disconects these days*, but since I don't pay for calls I don't care as much. Back then people would flood the company with complaints about cutoff calls and demands for credit if using today's equipment. (*Cheap switchhooks, bad PBX consoles/operators, cordless phones, poor customer wiring.)
Further, the old electro mechanical gear was very expensive and the system was engineered with much less capacity. Constant redialing, false offhooks, etc., from today's phones would cause problems back then.
I'm afraid I don't agree with that. The old Bell System provided telephone service for us, no more, no less. It's attitudes were internal only, other companies generally did not do business the same way and Bell's attitudes didn't, IMHO, seep into the overall social conscious (other than as a source for jokes for Lily Tomlin and Alan King).
As to technical issues, back in the heydey of the Bell System the rest of the general population didn't have a clue about technology (with few exceptions of engineers). Remember that years ago society's overall educational level was less and technology wasn't in offices. In a separate thread in alt.folklore. we're discussing a high school computer in 1973 and how at that time so few people knew anything about computers as compared to today. Remember how terrified so many people were in the old days of the C:> prompt?
If you took a typical office worker from 1973 and plopped them down today, they'd freak out and be completely lost. We forgot about the days before technology was so common; we take it for granted.
The old Bell System designed equipment, quite carefully, to be as user friendly as possible and to be as economically maintainable as possible. In the past that required rigid standardization and that "Prussian" model for things to work well, given the realities of times.
Let's be clear that even without divesture, the Bell System and its relations with subscribers today would be very different, to reflect the changes in technology that have come along. Cheap electronics of the 1980s allowed them to switch to ESS and advanced carrier (ie fibre) in a big way and that changed everything. Even without divesture the idea of renting phones to customers was dead, it was no longer economically justified.
The key difference between ISDN and DSL is that ISDN was actually a circuit card in the central office that gave you digital access to the switch and data network.
DSL rides on top of the copper pair and terminates into a DSLAM that is not attached to the telecom switch.
P.S.
Back in the 1960s, many U.S. businesses operated, or wish they operated, on the business model of regimentation--"the deeply set notion that the way "we" do things is the only way that matters". It wasn't just the Bell System.
For instance, when a private company hired a PBX operator, they typically required "Bell Trained", that is, the operator had previously worked for Bell. This was not because of familiarity with the keys and cords, indeed, a PBX was different than a C.O. switchboard. Rather, the private company sought the regimented attitude that Bell System employment instilled in a person. Likewise, back in the days when most young men served in the military via the draft, many companies sought veterans for the same reason.
As a result of the social turmoil of the 1960s, regimentation slipped away in the business world. Some companies fought against that change, others accepted it, some embraced it as a means toward higher productivity by encouraging employees to "think" (as we say today, "to think outside the box").
For myself, I didn't care to work in a regimented environment and I believe it's best when employees are encouraged to think and there is flexibility. However, it's also quite true that not all employee groups or populations respond well to that atmosphere, rather, some populations simply are more productive in a regimented environment. Many workers prefer a tight structure and don't want to think, they prefer being told exactly what to do.
As stated before, the old Bell System was not perfect, and its regimentation certainly led to frustration by subscriber's needing special services, support, or assistance. But generally, given the world of 1975 and earlier, the highly structured and uniform Bell System worked out extremely well for employees, subscribers, and stockholders.
***** Moderator's Note *****P.P.S.
I wasn't alluding to the internal regimentation of the former Bell companies: I'm sure the various business schools have published many works that cover the topic completely. What I _was_ discussing is the way that those attitudes colored, indeed, splilled over into, every aspect of the Bell System's dealing with both its customers and its regulators.
I once had a phone call from an N.E.T. technician who was moonlighting at an insurance company in Boston: he was a competent, reliable central office tech, but he needed more money than N.E.T. was paying and took the second job even though it was "forbidden". He called me concerning a problem at the insurance company's PBX, and when I explained his options, he got exasperated and yelled "You people are so arrogant!". It was the best training I could have received on customer relations: I respected the man, and therefore had to respect his opinion. I tried to do better after that.
Bill Horne Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.