Conference 7.286::dcu

related suggestion:  give the DCU a VTX slot - for posting information, 
interest rates, etc

Getting the DCU a node on the E-Net (its probably there anyway, just
hidden) presumes that the DCU knows how to use their computers.  So
far, I've seen very little evidence that they can.

To wit...

The DCU switched from 11/70s to VAXen.  Concurrent with that, EASY-TOUCH
went off the air for seven months.  As I understand it computer response
got worse, and they couldn't produce a statement for two months (or
so it seemed).

The DCU appears to do teller and ``owned'' ATM transactions on their
on-line database, but they take their on-line database offline to do
nightly account reconciliation and take the db offline for several days
to do interest crediting (as an aside, did you notice that they charge
you interest on loand daily, but credit you interest on savings
quarterly...).  In these days of VAX Volume Shadowing and Rdb technology,
I'd be be very interested in why any updates are done offline.

The branch here in Colorado Springs finds itself ``offline'' fairly
frequently because of comm failures.  When this happens, you are allowed
to deposit as much as you wish (without a printed receipt), but can
only withdraw up to $50 (Real useful on  a Friday before a long weekend).
There's no excuse for this.  Digital has such products as MicroVAX 2000s
and VAX Data Distriutor.  A little application of ingenuity and the
DCU would never need be ``off-the-air''.  Or even simpler, how about
redundant comm lines into the only DCU branch to serve 7 western states?


Sorry for the ramble, but I've been looking for an excuse to rant about
the tinkertoy way the DCU uses computers.

BobW

    RE: 30.2
    
    I know this isn't in the vein of the base topic, but..
    
    Why does DCU tolerate those kinds of outages? A real bank would
    start screaming to the Common Carrier for better service. Does the
    DCU use the DTN network, or does it use it's own lines? If it uses
    the DTN network, they would be much more reliable if they got their
    own dedicated circuits. Seems to be that it's part of the cost of
    doing *reliable* business and part of he service. I did see ATT/NE
    Tel modems in the MKO branch, so at least here they lease separate
    lines.
    
    We have the same problem here in MKO, but not as frequent. When
    they first went from Codex (I think) modems and stat muxes to DEC
    DFM's. The terminals would lock up, and they would need to restart
    the whole shooting match to get back. They were complaining about
    DEC products, when I suggested that they set up the flow control
    so that wouldn't happen.(DFM was my product at the time). Again,
    I would think that if the service is important to them, as well
    it should, they shouldn't tolerate that kind of 'service' and get
    someone in to fix it! Not live with it!
    
    Bryan

>If it uses the DTN network, they would be much more reliable if they got their
>own dedicated circuits.

I would suggest you learn a little more about telecommunications theory before
saying things like that.  Briefly, switched networks composed of multiple
separate groups of leased lines are more reliable than single leased lines.
Leased lines, however, meet the necessary security requirements of a distributed
banking network.

/john

    John,
    
    I have been in telecommunications for over 6 years. I believe I
    have a basic understanding of telephony and modem theory. Maybe
    not as great as you. I probably just fall down when it comes to 
    explaining what I mean.
    
    I know that, at least as of 3-4 years ago, that the DTN network
    consisted of a series of leased lines, not sure ofthe service type,
    from Maynard west (mostly). There was a wonderful map in Mike
    Patierno's office. My thinking was that they could have piggybacked 
    their circuits in with Digital's; maybe uf we had a T1 line from MLO
    to some other place (I don't know if we do or not, I am just
    surmising) that they would use one of the 24 channels. It was just
    a shot at whether they are using "our" lines or their own leased
    lines from a common carrier. I would tend to think that if they
    were our lines, the attitude would be to not apply as much pressure
    than if they were paying money to a common carrier for the service.
    Still, I have been to customers where they demanded good service
    from the service providers i.e. 99.5% uptime. They also had redundant
    circuits to their other offices.
    
    Clear as mud?
    
    Bryan
    
    
    

    I believe that the DCU lines were or are the only MULTIDROP circuits
    in Digital's inventory.  Multidrop technology is standard among
    IBM users but only marginally supported (at best) by Digital.  It's
    based on analog lines and modems that are polled and shut up the
    rest of the time.  Our T1 circuits, being digital (small d) technology,
    are not compatible.
    
    I don't know why they used multidrop, but it probably had to do
    with ATMs and other non-DEC machines.  As a separate corporate entity,
    though, there may be reasons for them to have their own carrier
    circuits.  Security comes to mind too...
        fred

RE: Is DCU Watching?
    
    In general DEC corporate and network security folks are dead set
    against DCU linking into the Enet. In behalf of this conference,
    I have tried on several occasions to get DEC to change its mind.
    Further, I know that the moderator of this conference has tried
    also (same results).
    
    The present "link" to the DCU from this conference is via Mark
    Strinkrauss, the chairman of the DCU board and DEC employee. He
    receives all new entries from this conference on a regular basis.
    
    Several issues raised here have been resolved, either because a
    DEC employee has brought the issue to the CU's attention or Mark
    has passed the his summarized entries to John Tilley.  There is
    evidence that the DCU is watching (indirectly) the issues raised
    here.
    
    Carl
    

    With the permission of the moderator, I am posting this
    survey/discussion. In several notes in this conference there are
    comments about "direct" connections to DCU for this conference. I am
    interested in the thoughts of the conference participants to the
    following questions. 
    
    1) What are the technical and non-technical issues involved?
    
    2) Would the direct connection be one-way or two way?
    
    3) Would you still contribute/start to contribute to this conference
    if a direct connection was established?
    
    4) Given the feelings about the elected officers of DCU and their
    willingness/ability to enter here, would you prefer the DCU
    Communications Person (Mary Madden) be the ONLY contact or should the
    board chair member (Mark Steinkrauss) be kept in the loop? 
    
    5) Would people rather, IF the DCU had an account on the Enet, send
    Email directly to and receive replies directly from DCU or to
    "directly" connect to DCU via this conference? Some combination? 
    
    Other thoughts are welcomed on the subject of DCU and DCU electronic
    communications.
    
    Carl Leeber
    {maintainer-of-the-batch-mailing-of-new-entries-to-DCU-chair}
    {...and not the moderator!}

    Ok, here is my 2 cents on the survey (since I asked {:^)>!).
    
    1) What are the technical and non-technical issues involved?

    Technical issues:
    	Software and hardware specifics of connecting DCU to DEC;
    		Use DEC Enet
    		Use Arppa net
    		Use CSNET
    		etc.
    	DCU support of the software and hardware to make a given
    	connection.
    Non-technical issues:
    	Policy of DEC prevents such connection (sometimes?).
    	Policy of DEC defines what information can be sent/received.
    
    2) Would the direct connection be one-way or two way?

    I would hope two way...
    
    3) Would you still contribute/start to contribute to this conference
    if a direct connection was established?

    I would continue.
    
    4) Given the feelings about the elected officers of DCU and their
    willingness/ability to enter here, would you prefer the DCU
    Communications Person (Mary Madden) be the ONLY contact or should the
    board chair member (Mark Steinkrauss) be kept in the loop?
    
    The person paid to do the job is Mary Madden. The board members
    are already on the net if you want to send them electronuc mail
    (...and then there's... paper, pen and hardcopy mail too! {:^)>).
    
    5) Would people rather, IF the DCU had an account on the Enet, send
    Email directly to and receive replies directly from DCU or to
    "directly" connect to DCU via this conference? Some combination?
    
    I'd like a combination. The stuff folks want to share goes via the
    conference. Other stuff goes via mail.
    
    Carl Leeber
    {maintainer-of-the-batch-mailing-of-new-entries-to-DCU-chair}
    {...and not the moderator!}

    Re .8:
    
>   1) What are the technical and non-technical issues involved?
    
    Clearly, several networking possibilities exist.  The most desirable
    would be for DCU's system to be attached to the E-Net.  Second choice
    would be for a designated DCU person to have an account on a DEC-owned
    system.  I presume that the same rationale which allows DCU access
    to DTN would be needed to allow DCU access to the E-Net.
    
>   2) Would the direct connection be one-way or two way?
    
    E-Mail should be bidirectional.  The DCU recipient should be able
    to respond directly to specific queries/complaints.
    
>   3) Would you still contribute/start to contribute to this conference
>   if a direct connection was established?
    
    Direct DCU participation would change the nature of this conference.
    That's not necessarily bad, but it IS a change.  Consider that such a
    conference would be more like those which are set up by various
    development groups to discuss their products.  If DCU is willing to
    participate on that basis, it's fine by me. 
    
>   4) Given the feelings about the elected officers of DCU and their
>   willingness/ability to enter here, would you prefer the DCU
>   Communications Person (Mary Madden) be the ONLY contact or should the
>   board chair member (Mark Steinkrauss) be kept in the loop? 
    
    DCU is a business, separate from Digital.  It is up to DCU to decide
    whether it wants to pass everything through the official communications
    person or open things up to other DCU personnel.  DCU board members,
    who are also Digital employees, SHOULD be following all this but might
    be best advised to let Mary respond to direct operational and policy
    questions.  They can fight behind the scenes.
    
>   5) Would people rather, IF the DCU had an account on the Enet, send
>   Email directly to and receive replies directly from DCU or to
>   "directly" connect to DCU via this conference? Some combination?
    
    Some combination.  For my own particular problems, I'd rather deal
    directly with DCU in hopes of seeking resolutions without boring a
    bunch of other folks.  For more general things, including rounding up
    support for my side of a difference of opinion with DCU, I'd rather use
    this conference as a forum.

    1) What are the technical and non-technical issues involved?
> ditto w/previouas replies
    
    2) Would the direct connection be one-way or two way?
>2-way    
    3) Would you still contribute/start to contribute to this conference
    if a direct connection was established?
>more so    
    4) Given the feelings about the elected officers of DCU and their
    willingness/ability to enter here, would you prefer the DCU
    Communications Person (Mary Madden) be the ONLY contact or should the
    board chair member (Mark Steinkrauss) be kept in the loop? 

>the feelings are due to their unwillingness to enter here.  If DCU or 
the BOD showed they had any respect or interest in our opinions, we
would easily give the same respect and interest to theirs.

    5) Would people rather, IF the DCU had an account on the Enet, send
    Email directly to and receive replies directly from DCU or to
    "directly" connect to DCU via this conference? Some combination? 
>    Email would allow individual problems to be worked more 
efficiently