Conference wecare::zko_suggestion_box

I heard about this indirectly a few days ago, and didn't believe that they
would do anything so stupidly disruptive to a major site.  I guess I was
wrong.  The memo doesn't say how long the old numbers will continue to work.
And here I just had new business cards printed!

				Steve

I've started WESERV::DTN (q.v.) 615.* to try and find out what's going on.
				/AHM/SIGH

I'm really ticked off about this! (I just got new business cards, too - 
although that's not the main reason I'm upset. :-) )

I sent mail to complain to the CCS help desk address (CALLUS::ESHELP), just 
for jollies. Of course I got a canned "your call has been logged" response 
for now; we'll see whether/how an actual person responds.

Maybe if everyone at ZKO called/sent mail to CCS to protest...?

Let's see:  A site is closing, so the site to which those residents are
moving (one that existed before the site that's now closing, I might add) 
is the one where the phone numbers have to change.  Yeah, that makes sense...

- Nina

Well, I can see why - there was a whole block of 264 numbers for MKO which is
now unused.  The existing 264 folks can't be added to 381 because we don't
have enough free numbers in 381 (we only "own" a portion of the 881 exchange).
But what I don't understand is why we have to switch at all.  Why can't the
existing MKO block be returned to NYNEX?

			Steve

>Well, I can see why - there was a whole block of 264 numbers for MKO which is
>now unused.  The existing 264 folks can't be added to 381 because we don't
>have enough free numbers in 381 (we only "own" a portion of the 881 exchange).

Yup, I know that now - in response to the mail message I sent to the CCS help
desk, I got a call from someone named Cathy (or Kathy) in CCS with this very 
information (lack of sufficient nubmers in the 381/881 exchange).   
Cathy was very friendly and pleasant and apparently has been receving a lot of 
calls about this. :-)

It remains to be seen how many numbers will have to change, whether it be to 
entirely new numbers, or just the prefixes, or what.  Apparently cost center 
managers will have some input into that, if I understood correctly what Cathy
was telling me.

>But what I don't understand is why we have to switch at all.  Why can't the
>existing MKO block be returned to NYNEX?

Hmm, if I'd thought about that (or read that reply beforehand), I'd've asked 
about it...

Cathy has been referring inquiries/complaints to Mark Camilleri, who is the
CCS Client Services Manager, or something.

-- Nina

I sent mail to Mark earlier this week asking about the change - never heard
back from him.

				Steve

    I sent a somewhat caustic mail to CCS on Friday, and late in the
    afternoon, I received a call from Arthur Dean of Telecoms. He has given
    me an explanation that makes sense (at least to me).
    
    The SL100 at MKO that provides service to all of MKO, ZKO, NIO, NQO is
    made by Northern Telecom, as are all the handsets, and the wiring in
    the buildings has been done to meet Northern Telecom requirements.
    
    The SL100 has to interface with a public exchange also made by Northern
    Telecom (can't remember the model, sorry), and the nearest one is in
    Manchester. 881 numbers can't be connected directly to Manchester, but
    the 884 numbers already are. So we have to go with 884. (The 881
    numbers only work today because of the way they are routed through MKO).
    
    For ZKO to continue using 881 after MKO closes down, all the wiring and
    handsets would have to be replaced, costing an estimated $32 million.
    Frankly, while I don't like having to change my number, now I
    understand why it's happening, I'd prefer to take that hit and see the
    $32m being put to better uses (like salary continuation :-).
    
    I did comment to Arthur that a little more explanation in the
    announcement of WHY would have been good. Although I didn't think of it
    at the time of the conversation, later I got to thinking of mushrooms
    (which are kept in the dark and fed on 'manure' :-)
    
    - Richard.

>    For ZKO to continue using 881 after MKO closes down, all the wiring and
>   handsets would have to be replaced, costing an estimated $32 million.

Something's fishy here.   The non-feature phone handsets we use are standard
analog telephones.   You can buy a phone at Lechmere that works just as
well as the crappy handsets we currently have.   And the strung wiring we
have in the building is standard stuff too.       

Switch problems I can believe, although the explanation in .7 makes no
sense to me.

Once again, one part of Digital decides to 'save' a direct expense and
incurs a huge indirect expense on someone else.   Does this ever quit?

> Something's fishy here.   The non-feature phone handsets we use are standard
> analog telephones.   You can buy a phone at Lechmere that works just as
> well as the crappy handsets we currently have.   And the strung wiring we
> have in the building is standard stuff too.       
> 
> Switch problems I can believe, although the explanation in .7 makes no
> sense to me.
    
    It's what he told me...
    
> Once again, one part of Digital decides to 'save' a direct expense and
> incurs a huge indirect expense on someone else.   Does this ever quit?
    
    I also felt that was happening. I made that comment in my conversation
    with Arthur. The $32m was the answer.
    
    Just the messenger...
    
    - Richard.

That is certainly the most convoluted explanation of the situation I've ever
heard.

The wiring and sets that we have in ZKO would work with any phone system.

However, there is an actual portion of the Northern Telecom Switch that
_is_ located at ZKO.  This is known as an RLCM (Remote Line Concentrator
Module).  It, as well, as the RLCM located at Salem, must be connected
to the main module of the SL100 (or DMS100 in public network terms) in
order to operate.

Our conversion from PBX to Centrex requires the telephone company to
operate the main module as part of their own switching network.  As a
result, we will (according to the information Arthur provided to Richard)
be a subsidiary of the DMS100 in Manchester.  (I don't know what's happening
to the SL100 in Merrimack; assuming we sold it to New England Telephone they
could be putting it into some small town anywhere in the region to upgrade a
central office.)

The problem then remains that we own all of the 884 numbers, and it's easy
for them to be relocated to anywhere the telco sees fit.  (Hopefully they
will still be rated as Nashua numbers -- they were never rated as Merrimack
numbers even while Merrimack was operational.)

It is less easy (and simply not the way the phone company does things) for
part of the 881 numbers to be handled by the #5ESS in Nashua and part of
the numbers to be handled by the DMS100 in Manchester.  Partial exchanges
split across machines are easy to deal with in a PBX, where there is a
local telco office providing the DID trunks, but not in a Centrex, where
the numbers are actually _in_ the local telco office and there are no
DID trunks at all.

/john

BTW, as I pointed out the DTN conference, this is _not_ a DEC decision.

This decision was made by the phone company.

We no longer have a PBX; we sold the equipment to New England Telephone
and are now a Centrex customer.  New England Telephone now makes all the
decisions about our phone service.

/john

>The memo doesn't say how long the old numbers will continue to work.

There won't be any permissive period at all where both numbers work.
This will be an immediate cutover; one day you'll have one number; the
next day you'll have a new one.

/john

>The wiring and sets that we have in ZKO would work with any phone system.

However, the "P-Sets" which most secretaries (and some other people) have
will only work with the Northern Telecom system.  There are a lot of them.

/john

    
    	How come if this was sent to everyone in ZKO, no one in my
    group got it?

.14> How come if this was sent to everyone in ZKO, no one in my group got it?

Maybe you're group is slated to be moved...or sold...  ;-)

Do you already have an 884 number, perhaps?


				Webb

"Everyone in ZKO" is a difficult list to manage.  If you live on a Unix machine
in particular, any sort of administrative mail can easily get lost.  The senders
just can't grasp "[email protected]".  Now, they are going to have grasp
"[email protected]" if the exchange plans get here.  Oh goody.  Nobody will be
able to find me.

Tim

I got the mail two days after other people got it - and this was with normal
"VMS Mail".

					Steve

.16> "Everyone in ZKO" is a difficult list to manage.

Yeah, so it would seem, and I'm not sure why this is.  It's a pretty sad
commentary on an "Enterprise Computing" company...

.16> they are going to have grasp "[email protected]" if the exchange plans
.16> get here.

My understanding is that "engineering" is exempt from the plan to switch
everyone over to Exchange.  However, once the switch is complete, I imagine
it'll be pretty much just like the current situation with MTS -- people 
outside will have trouble sending mail in, and people inside will be at the
mercy of the gateways trying to send things out.

Still, it probably will be OK for those of us who don't have to use Exchange: 
there appears to be an internet-style address domain for accessing it
(although this is true for MTS, too), so we on the outside should be OK, and
with today's demands for internet access, I should hope that it's clear to
Exchange users how to send mail "out".

Which returns us to the original problem of "list management"...  :-p


				Webb

I never got the message through official channels, though I get plenty of
Reader's Choice mail (some of which is sent to me because I'm in ZKO).

When will the central ZKO admins stop trying to run a central mail list?
A single address will reach everyone in the UNIX group in ZKO, and the UNIX
group maintains that address.  If there were similar addresses for each group,
the central "everyone in ZKO" list could just be a list of those lists.

Can't do that Jon... That would make sense but it would take power (and possibly
a job) away from the person who owns "the list"...

;-)
Tim

From:	GRANIT::GRANIT::MRGATE::"SALES::A1::CCS_ADVISORY" 19-MAY-1997 06:29:18.30
To:	@Distribution_List
CC:	
Subj:	Southern New Hampshire Telephone Service Changes                       1

From:	NAME: Connectivity & Computing Srvs  <CCS_ADVISORY@A1@SALES@PKO>
To:     See Below

TO: 		ZKO and NQO Employees

SUBJECT: 	Southern New Hampshire Telephone Service Changes

EFFECTIVE: 	September 8, 1997

RELEVANT
SITES: 		ZKO, NQO

ADVISORY: 	You recently received an initial communication regarding a 
                new telephone and voice mail system for NH employees as well 
                as a telephone number change for ZKO employees.

		In response to feedback and requests to receive additional 
                information, below you will find more information regarding 
                the changes and the circumstances that require these changes 
                to be made.

		The telephone system that delivers service today to MKO, 
                ZKO, NIO and NQO is based in the Merrimack (MKO) facility.  
                Due to the closure of the Merrimack facility, an alternative 
                telephone solution was needed for the remote sites currently 
                serviced by MKO.

		Manchester is the closest NYNEX Central Office (CO) that 
                offers the Centrex services and features that we require to 
                support our needs here at Digital. In addition, a new voice 
                mail solution is available which improves voice mail service 
                and feature functionality.

		We  need to change some ZKO telephone numbers because the 
                new Centrex System, provisioned from the Manchester CO, 
                requires a Manchester telephone exchange.   DIGITAL does not 
                have exclusive use of  the complete (603)-881 telephone 
                number block exchange (10,000 numbers).   The 881 exchange 
                is commingled with residence and other business users.  
                Therefore, our Spitbrook numbers must change to an exchange 
                resident in the Manchester Central Office.  We can have any  
                "available" exchange in the 603 area code and selected 884 
                (the current MKO exchange) as it offered the most 
                flexibility to reduce the volume of number changes.  This 
                affords us the opportunity to retain as many MKO and NQO 
                assigned numbers as possible.

		An arrangement has been made with NYNEX  to offer a special 
                Centrex tariff, approved by the N.H. PUC (Public Utilities 
                Commission),  permitting 603-884, for billing purposes, to 
                be a Nashua exchange.  This means that calls from ZKO to any 
                Nashua exchange will be invoiced as local calls. Conversely, 
                calls made from your residence to your office at Spitbrook 
                will be billed as a call terminating in Nashua.  No change 
                from today. 

IMPACT: 

ZKO 		All Spitbrook employees external telephone number will 
                change to 603-884 from 603-881.  An external intercept 
                announcement will be provided.

		The ZKO DTN code will change to 264 from 381.

		The last four digits of ZKO employees telephone number will 
                remain the same except for approximately 200 numbers which 
                overlap primarily with NQO. Note: A special project has been 
                initiated to manage this overlap with the goal of reducing 
                the duplication and informing individuals with duplicated 
                numbers.

MKO		No change.  Note: We have made arrangements to provide MKO 
                employees relocating to ZKO a way to retain their MKO number 
                now and throughout this effort.

NQO		No change.   Note:  Some common area phones, secondary or 
                unpublished telephone numbers may be re-assigned as required 
                in conjunction with the special project mentioned above.

CONTACT: 	If you have questions, please contact your  Help Desk or 
                your Client Services Representative.  The number of your 
                Help Desk can be found on the CCS World-Wide Web Home Page 
                at:

				http://www.imc.das.dec.com/ccs/

         		            DIGITAL Internal Use Only

Distribution:  This message was delivered to you utilizing the Reader's Choice 
delivery services.  You received this message because you are located in ZKO or 
NQO.  If you have questions regarding this message, please contact the above 
reference(s).





To Distribution List:

RE .21 - If only they'd sent out THAT announcement in the first place...!

- Nina

So, this means that either:

A:  The person(s) who made the decision to close MKO didn't fully analyze the
    impact of closing that facility and they're just now realizing how it
    effects all these other sites.  The cost of switching phone systems, the
    cost of remodeling ZK2-1...I'm sure there's more.

B:  They knew all along and are now just getting around to doing something
    about it.

My bet is on A.  I really wonder how much money we've wasted trying to cut
back on expenses?  But at least we all know the meaning of "restructuring
cost" and how it applies to general accounting practices.

Dan

I'm sure all those costs are less than maintaining MKO.

However, concern for employee incovenience and work disruption has never been
high on the list for those making these sorts of decisions.

					Steve