Conference 7.286::digital

    RE .0
    
    I am one of the many "off site" consultants that work for Digital.
    Without dial-in access not only would I not know what is happening
    via notes, my manager would never get my time. Oh yes, I guess
    we can forget reading mail too.
    
    			-Jim-

    
    Un-be-frigging-lieveable!!
    
    First they give the field folks laptops with modems, now this.
    
    -Ed
    

    From the CSC in Colorado, we have to respond within minutes.  If we
    take hours, our customers tend to complain.  When someone on standby
    gets paged, they need to dial in from home or make it here in minutes
    for commitments to be made.  Stopping dial ins is a real bright idea.
    
    Heck! along the same lines, lets stop design and manufacturing.  That
    should cut cost.  And heck, how about getting rid of all of the
    employees, can save a bundle that way.  Heck! if we close down
    completely, think of the money we could save.
    
    Look!  We need resources to do business and make the commitments we
    have already made, and customers have paid for.  Take a way the ability
    to do the job and meet those commitments, we might as well shut down...
    
    Jim Morton

    Well, I'm not in the services/sales business, but not having dial-in
    access seems a bit much to me. Many's the time I've had to stay at
    home (service people coming, car trouble, etc.) and could still stay
    productive, meet my deadlines and all that, simply because I had
    dial-in access. 
    
    What more does Digital want from us...I don't even use company-supplied
    equipment when I work at home (bought my own equipment!), just the phone 
    lines!
    
    joan

    
    
    Sure, cut paying for phone lines.  So instead of having support folks
    on pager working remotely, pay'em full compensation to have them 
    on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Let's see -- $30 a month 
    to pay for my phone line versus a fulltime person on site.  Yup, 
    makes sense to me...

    
    So, can we have a quick note from the mods regarding why .0 is /hidden?
    
    If not, ya may as well get rid of the whole string....
    

    Methinks the bozo in finance who came up with the idea is trying to
    cover his/her tracks.
    
    -Ed
    

    More likely, someone entered a mail message without getting the author's
    permission?

    Shouldn't have entered the note in the first place.  Imagine causing us
    to spend more money and not being able to make commitments and causing
    us to spend more money.  I'd have been ashamed of such a note.
    
    Jim Morton

    
    Perhaps, but do you think it would have mattered if the mail message
    contained a "good" idea?
    
    

	RE: .8 I read .0. It did not contain a mail message. I didn't see
	anything that would get it hidden in any conference. The only three
	possibilities I can see off the top of my head are the author having
	second thoughts, the moderators thinking the person should have second
	thought, or some manager not wanting their ideas made public because
	no decision has been made yet.

			Alfred

    
    No damage done IMHO.  The issue of keeping remote sales support was 
    discussed here in notes, what's wrong with discussing *this* issue?
    
    -Ed
    

    Okay, I admit it.  I wrote the base note and hid it after a few
    replies, pending a chance to clarify it.
    
    I have heard from various sources that there is some talk at the SLT
    (mainly "finance") level to encourage us to shut down incoming modems,
    though this would NOT shut down modems for the HOME program since they
    have no offices.  We in Corp. Telecom did receive forwarded to us, but
    I don't think with "public" on it so I can't repost it, a memo from
    Bill Steul telling us that while he understands how telecom is a
    cost-saving technology important to the company's various businesses,
    and how he doesn't want telecom cuts to severely hurt other businesses,
    he isn't relenting on his demand that telecom costs be cut, somehow.
    Dial-in from home is a potential cost that can be cut.
    
    Now, is it a luxury like Canobie, a semi-useful business expense, or is
    it something with such a high rate of return that a small cut in
    telecom costs will result in a much greater loss on other line items? 
    That's a serious question that we in Telecom can't answer by ourselves. 
    It's one for the SLT to decide, if we can come up with reasoned,
    flame-free facts to help.  
    
    I also concede that I have a personal interest.  Besides telecommuting
    maybe 50 hours/month, I have as part of my normal work redesigned the
    way incoming modem traffic can be handled in Greater Maynard.  This
    would cut costs and improve service.  But we can't move ahead on the
    implementation because of the talk about "shutting down all the
    modems".  Dial-in is costlier in the field and not as easy to fix,
    either, though some good folks have been looking into it.
    
    We do need to find ways to cut telecom expenses.  The question that I'm
    posing is one of cost-benefit:  How much benefit do we lose by cutting
    these costs?  At this point, only hard numbers count.

    that this topic actually exists says lots. none of it good.

    I pay approximately $16.00 a month, maybe more to belong to CompuServe
    and America On-line.  I pay another $30.00 a month to have a second
    line so that I can work from home when the need arises.  I would much
    rather pay incidental costs to have access or give up my luxurious cube
    at the office.  If the costs are too high, maybe they can be put in a
    different context - reduce the floor space that we have in favor of
    having people work out of their homes.  Many do not need to be at the
    office except for meetings, use of copiers, etc.  Indeed, often that is
    the least productive place to be, given the many interruptions that
    occur and needless meetings that waste all too many people's time.

    The bottom line:  We need access to electronic mail, VTX, etc.  We are
    connected to each other via this electronic umbilical cord.  It's
    critical to how many people do their jobs.  We've spent a fortune
    telling customers how wonderful this is and how elegant our
    architecture is; now we are going to shut it down?
    
    I guess I'd go along with this idea if it meant saving some jobs and it
    could be demonstrated that it was being used wastefully.  Somehow I
    suspect that is not the case.
    
    Again, these kinds of actions, in the absense of a compelling future,
    only temporarily delay the inevitable arrival of the grim reaper.  I
    would make any sacrifice necessary if it represented an important step
    toward Digital's survival;  sadly, I'm not convinced that the
    sacrifices being asked of people improve our future prospects.  Rather,
    it seems that they are making it inevitable because they represent a
    line of thought (cost cutting, strict financial analysis, data driven
    decisions gone amuck, etc.) that has been demonstrated to be ultimately
    bankrupt.

    I don't know the whole story here -- not by a long shot -- but my gut
    reaction is that much of this type of thing (if true, this string's
    still-vague subject may be one, but the jury's out on that) is driven
    by the goal of transferring costs OUT OF A SPECIFIC COST CENTER, to be
    taken up by increased expenses IN OTHER COST CENTERS, and a potential
    loss of revenue overall.  This is worse than shameful, if it is true in
    any case.  If/when verified, it imho should be grounds for termination
    of the proposer.  We are all in the same boat and what hurts the bottom
    line hurts us all.  Individual cost center/empire interests be DAMNED.
                                                      

    I could imagine going home after getting my pay slip and telling my
    wife.  Honey Bumpins!  We are being taxed more and I haven't seen a
    raise in 2 yrs and our appartment rent and food cost and gas cost and
    health care insurance are all going up.  We need to drop one of our
    utilities to cut costs.  Which one should it be?  The water, the trash,
    the electric, the gas.  My wife then screams back at me and says, might
    as well get rid of the water, since we got rid of the sewage last month
    and we can't flush anyway.  I'd call my parents for money but we got
    rid of the phone 2 months ago.
    
    
    If this corporation is to survive, it can't keep cutting off its
    resources.  We made commitments, and cut jobs expecting that the
    technology would make up for it.  Now we want to cut the technology.
    
    And now the company has to consider if its modem and phone line is worth 
    the cost. SAD SAD SAD...  I feel sorry for the manager that would even 
    dare think of such a thing.  It should be up to the cost centers to 
    determine what resources they need to do their jobs, not some edict 
    from on high...
    
    Jim Morton

Is Digital going to be willing to pay the overtime costs for internal
systems support people or customer support people to drive into a Digital
facility so they can access Digital 'resources' (Notes, VTX, etc.)?

I know many people that do work after hours in support of business;
indirect stuff like reading mail after a day that was too busy making $
for Digital during 8 to 5, or direct stuff such as proposals, researching
technical problems, etc., and they do all of this ON THEIR OWN TIME... it
never shows up on any timecard. (I just finished writing a weekly report,
for my customer site, from home that has taken me about 1.5 hours to
write and I am not putting it on a timecard.)

If dialin access is removed, they will either collect time for doing it
on their timecard or just say 'screw it' and not bother doing anything
for Digital after hours.

Another posibility is that users will run up long distance bills dialing
into sites that still have dialin access.

Dialin access isn't a luxury, it's a critical resource that Digital wants
to regard as optional. Say... let's do away with copy machines since they
cost so much- all that paper and toner you know...

Finally... if word about this potential policy leaks out to our customers
we will really lose some credibility- so much for being a networking
company! 

Lee

    I have a fairly long commute to the office (by MY standards, anyway),
    so I work from home one or two days a week.  I get my work done and
    I have my management's support to do this.  Fatter of mact, we just
    had a meeting today to see if we can *expand* our telecom resources
    (e.g. get LAT boxes with SLIP support so we can link up from home
    via SLIP, maybe get some limited dial-out capability for customer
    contact, etc).
    
    I said it before when telecom was attacked, and I'll say it again:
    if this goes through Digital will achieve significant cost savings,
    including the salaries of myself and several of my colleagues...
    
    --jim
    

    Well, this has to be a suggestion by someone who doesn't actually work
    on a computer.  Definitely not a software person!
    
    Simply: you cannot expect ANY software engineers to go along with this
    one.  You cannot expect ANY software support people to go along with
    this either!
    
    Mary Joe already addressed the N+1 times I have called in to check code
    and build special images for the folks out on the front lines!  Many
    cost centers think dial-in access is so important that they pay for
    their employees second phone lines.  This is important for their
    business.
    
    Moreover, software often requires that the engineer work odd hours
    submitting tests, checking builds (that are taking *&^^&%$ long because
    DEC is getting so cost concious that they won't cough up the $ to
    upgrade CPUs needed to do one's job), checking test results, getting
    the job done ON TIME!  There is no way that I can just pop into the car
    and drive over to the office everytime I need to check something out. 
    (There are times that I am logged in 24 hours a day at one location or
     another... my sleeping is between builds.  The spacebar dent in my
     head proves it :-)
    
    Well, skip shipping products on time!  Skip the idea of profitability
    in the software space.  Yup, it will save us money.  So much,  that we
    might as well close all the SSB sites... we won't be shipping any
    products.
    
    Brilliant :-(  just Brilliant...
    
    I got another idea: put front panels on the VAXs and AXPs and stop using
    work stations or terminals!  It will save a lot of power!
    
    Can I assume that you have enough information now to stomp all over
    this idea?
    
    Shocked at the shear lunacy of this suggestion...
    -Dana
    
    PS: its a full moon isn't it... no wonder.

    re:.16
    Actually, the cost-shifting issue is a bit more complicated.  The
    historical telecom environment within Digital was rife with this; we
    have a few managers who have literally multiplied costs severalfold by
    taking advantage of internal billback anomalies, shifting a small cost
    out of their cost center while making a big one elsewhere.  Such
    activities have been rewarded by managers whose cost centers
    benefitted.  Fortunately, steps are beginning to be taken to rectify
    this.
    
    What this proposal may be doing, if we can get real numbers instead of
    just impressions here, is shifting cost out of one line-item of the
    company's books (all CC's combined) and causing other line items to
    suffer.  Telecom is not in one CC; dial-up lines are charged to many
    CCs, but Finance holds a small group with a modest budget responsible
    for the telecom activities of all other groups.  This is a relic of the
    old matrix:  The telecom group is "functionally" responsible for the
    phone calls made by the field et al.  Finance is trying to reduce the
    overall telecom expenditure, probably viewing it as overhead.  Dial-ins
    are paid by many CCs, so the proposed solution is a policy.

    
    RE: .20
    
    Well, maybe future plans are that software engineers, etc., will not be
    required therefore today's dial-in capacity will not be needed?
    
    
    RE: dialins
    
    I agree with the previous reply which states that these are ideas being
    proposed or pushed by people within this company who do not use, let
    alone understand, the technology.  Without that usage and
    understanding, the perceived value in their eyes is minimal or worse,
    considered "waste".  I don't know what a VP requires to perform his/her
    duties well and effeciently so I would never propose changes to their
    working environment.  From where I sit, I don't need one
    or two personal secretarys, a plush office, a personal conference room,
    etc.  To me, this is all "waste" if I don't understand what the VP
    needs to do his/her job.
    
    But things like notes, email, dialins, etc. are critical for me to do 
    my job well and effeciently.  Remove any of these and my job becomes
    much more difficult to perform, maybe even impossible to perform. 
    Since Digital was offering its employees practically nothing in the way
    of PCs, I spent thousands of MY dollars on equipment (unfortunately
    not Digital).  I have used this equipment to dial into customer systems
    from home, dial into work to create/finish configuration estimates for
    salesmen, receive FAXes from work, to name but a few.  I feel I'm doing 
    my part but Digital must also continue to do their part.
    

  Okay, well, it costs Digital something somewhere, but pays me nothing...
  VNS Computer News would most likely disappear as well. I spend several hours
each weekend typing in the following week's news. Although I live near ZKO, I
doubt I could convince myself to drive in on weekends just to do VNS (assuming
of course I could arrange for a terminal to be available for my use). On the
other hand, it would give me all Sunday morning to do other things ;-).

						Trace

    whose work makes DIGITAL(tm) what it is, and that work is leveraged --
    nay, enabled! -- by dial-in access.  There are thousands more like
    Talcott.  
    
    Who needs 'em?  If you're a Manager and you're thinking "Well, MY cost
    center doesn't...", then slap yourself upside the haid.  Hard.
    
    /s/ [email protected] 
    

    
    
      I'd rather give up my office phone  than lose dialup access...
    
    
    						-al
    

Another point:

When the note about not publishing the phone book started, I thought I'd have
to dial in to look up a phone number if I need to call somebody from home.  If
they get rid of the dial in lines, there will be no way at all of finding a
telephone number from home.

						Brian

    RE: .26 Well, you can still call Digital information. I don't know
    how well that works after hours though.
    
    		Alfred

    
    I just spent the last few nights, from 7 to midnight, sitting in front
    of a terminal at home, babysitting builds in an attempt to improve a
    product's development environment and maybe help stick to a critical
    schedule. This was in addition to 8+ daily hours in the office.
    
    My wife and kids weren't happy, because I had little time for them, and
    because I'm always grumpy the next day when I don't get enough sleep.
    It used to be easy to say to them, "Yeah, but this will pay off in the
    future"... but we all know the ending to *that* story.
    
    Now someone wants to try to save the company a little money by
    relieving me of my modem access?
    
    What do you think the family will say? Probably stuf like "I've wanted
    that spont in the den for some time now for a nice reading chair."
    "Hey, Dad -- let's go to the high school game tonight."
    
    What do I say? I say it's getting harder and harder to get any real work
    done around here...
    
           ...and it's harder and harder to care much aout that.
    

    The idea of removing dial in access is unthinkable.  Period.
    Sales people need to spend MUCH more time with customers at customer
    sites.  With all the meetings, required training and paperwork, there
    is little enough time to sell face to face with customers as it is.
    
    If I present a quote to a customer who then says "add a few more
    fridleys and I'll take it down to finance for approval", I can access
    the quoting system from his office phone (with my laptop or his PC) and
    print out the quote in 3 minutes.  
    
    ANYTHING that reduces the time a salesperson has with customers face to
    face reduces our revenue and often increases cost at the same time.
    (ie.. driving back to the office to generate another quote and then
    driving back to the customer the next day...
    
    And, of course, if you remove access from home, you reduce productivity
    greatly. 

If the bean counters think they're going to save money they're sadly mistaken.

If dial-up access goes away, I'll buy a modem with my manager's support,
connect it to my desk phone line and switch it on when I'm out of my office.
I'm sure I won't be the only one.

So, instead of a limited number of shared modems, there will be zillions
of private modems.  

Why don't we stop hiring all these highly paid VPs if we want to save money.
What is the return on the investment we've made on all this outside talent?

We're still sucking wind and the turnaround is nowhere in sight.  I say fire 
the bean counters!  It's costing more to count the damn beans than the cost 
of the beans themselves!

    And with a potentially large number of well- to loosely-monitored
    modems, it by definition increases the potential security risks to our
    network.

    This must be a joke, right? This is the MOST RIDICULOUS IDEA I HAVE
    EVER HEARD. This even beats the VP of TP's cost cutting idea.
    
    	fred deady

    
    "Digital -- The Company That Can't Afford To Use It's Own Technology"
    
    Yeah, that ought to sell lots of our networking products!

For a moment I thought this has to be a joke.

Supporting many systems can be done in a number of ways. I found that
one of the nices ways is to be able to log in from home and do things
that do not require physical access to a machine - most things that is.
My apartment has 2 phone lines so that I can dial-in and still have my
phone available. The idea of removing dial-in access is one of the more absurd
ideas I have seen or heard. And these days that says alot.

Reading .21 suggests that once again, we are (or will become) a vicitim
of a numbers game of our own creation. Dialin usage is probably not the
problem, only how we account/charge for it is.

Lee

    As far as cutting corporate telecom costs go...why don't you try this
    strategy.  We are going to lay off another 10k or so bodies right? 
    Multiply the average telecom support cost per person by 10k and send
    that figure up to finance.  Tell'm the money was saved by doing a
    "...proactive revaluation of necessary telecommunications support for 
    relevant population"

    Don't laugh...it could work


    Mark O'B

    For my situation( I am an account manager in channels), cutting the
    dialins would be a dissaster. My primary use is accessing "AQS" for
    pricing and quotations. Doing this from my home or my customers offices is
    a huge advantage for us.                    
    	
    Surely, clear thinking will prevail!

    Thanks for the input, y'all.
    
    Let me reiterate:  Nobody in Telecom thinks this is a good idea.  It is
    NOT a policy being implemented.  It is a PROPOSAL being batted around. 
    It is mainly coming from the FINANCE function, which is looking to cut
    expenses.
    
    In order to evaluate our potential cost-saving moves, we have a
    template that includes both costs saved and costs incurred as a result. 
    Numbers talk.  Saying, "It's a bad idea" won't do it.  Specific
    consequences do it.  So from this "group brainstorming" activity, I've
    already identified the following specific "costs" of the proposal:
    
    * The ability to put employees on call via pager will be reduced, so
    24-hour customer support will need more on-site bodies.
    
    * The CSC's ability to get answers any hour of the day will be reduced,
    harming our customer service.
    
    * Many employees (WC4) put in additional work hours from home, at no
    additional pay, so the value of these hours would be lost.
    
    * Software engineering uses off-hours home access to prepare emergency
    patches and custom builds to solve customer problems.  Lack of dial-in
    access would harm our support of these accounts and make our perceived
    product quality look worse, since fixes would have to wait.
    
    * Time-to-market of new products would be affected, since engineers
    doing this "extra" work from home would be putting in fewer hours/week;
    this time has been factored into existing product schedules based on
    experience.
    
    * Sales persons would be spending less time with customers, as they
    would need to spend more time going to the office.  (HOME sales people,
    of course, would be exempted.  But how do you keep others from using
    their modems?)
    
    * The recent investment in laptops would be largely wasted, as they are
    set up to have on-line access.
    
    * Many employees would "do the right thing" and bypass the restriction
    by putting in private modems on their desks.  This would reduce
    control, be more expensive, and have inferior security.
    
    It's specifics like these, especially the ones that can have real
    dollars attached, that help with the decision-making process. 
    Remember, this is NOT something we telecom folks want, but we need to
    rebut it in the bean-counters' own language.  And the managers in
    question are all VP level....
    
    I propose that we discontinue ordinary "this sucks" flameage here, and
    try to limit replies to specific constructive suggestions to add to the
    above list.

This seems to explain how this sort of thing happens. Sometimes at least.
 
From the  AEE Status Report, October 1993
 
"Before we decide to cancel something, we need to know what the impact
and repercussions, which is difficult to know today.  In fact, the
best way to figure out whether or not a product is needed is to
announce its cancellation and then see what happens.  And that is the
only process we have to determine whether something is of value or
not."

    re .40
    
    This type of "oil-can" management bespeaks a bankruptcy which far
    transcends mere dollars and cents.
    
    

    Actually, I think I am most appalled with the fact that .39's list
    of ways this suggestion would impact costs/businees is *common
    sense* arguments.  How can any Finance person worth anything not
    *already* know these things?  Management 101 anyone?
    
    
    -HA

I know this is a variant of the "this sucks" line that we've been requested to
not partake in, but I just *had* to say this...

I find it *inconceivable* that time has to be wasted to justify dial-in access
to the Easynet. Anybody with even the *faintest* idea of how things are
accomplished in this company would have to *know* the impact of this measure. 

Why not ask to justify having floors in our offices, water in the bathrooms,
electricity to power things, etc... ???

Some things are just not worth wasting brain cells on and this is one of them. 
Whoever requested this needs to get a firm grip upon reality.

And now back to a more civil tone of discussion....

Bruce

    
    
    Re: .43
    
    Word!
    
    

.43> Why not ask to justify having floors in our offices, water in the
.43> bathrooms, electricity to power things, etc... ???
    
    
    GEEEEZ, why'd you have to bring all that up?!!??!?
    
    (Hope our "financial resources" aren't reading this.)
    

	Did anyone see the Simpsons Halloween show on TV last night, Oct 
28,1993? There was a boy on the school bus with a tee shirt that said
Wang Computers. It broke me up. Some people don't even know that Wang 
once made computers.

	Heaven help us... but I hope next year's show does not show 
someone with a tee shirt that says Digital or DEC or... well you know 
what I mean.

	BTW. They took my DEC home phone line away this week. I am a 
software engineer and do my best work in the quiet of the evening or on 
weekends at home.

			Arnie

    This is another type of FLAME note. I'm getting a little tired of
    "ideas" being thrown at the field to "assess" impact. Can't our
    corporate leaders provide any insight into running a successful
    business? Think, then think again.
    
    cheers,
    	fred deady

>      I'd rather give up my office phone  than lose dialup access...

I was about to enter the same note!

-steve-

RE: .0 and .13

Gee, and I was about to start requesting improved access!

Out here, using Windows and Macintosh laptops, we'd rather have
more modern, what I'll call, PCLAN dialup access rather than 
async into a terminal server. Servers which support LAN Manager
Remote Access Software (RAS) or Apple's AppleTalk Remote Access
(ARA)! With this, you have infinitely more client/server tools
that can be used, as well as dumb old terminal emulation.
I've been considering going to my local telecom folks to propose
and request this. Sounds like I'd be laughed out of the place
now.

Maybe, if the field has to consolidate dial-in into regional
sites, like Dallas in my case (I'm in Austin), there will be more
possibility of pooling/consolidating improved remote PCLAN access
equipment for RAS or ARA and 14.4Kbps (off set by L.D. charges of
course). 

I have 14.4Kbps in my laptop which I ought to be able to use to bring 
up an icon of my directory at work, use GUI-based Mail, VTX, Notes,  
SQL access and terminal emulation if I have to to. Instead, I'm doing 
character cell at 9600. Have you heard any discussion around upgrading
our facilities to support things like this?

It's really a shame that what we can remotely demo/utilize is still 
character-cell based stuff. My accounts all have more sophisticated
(read ARA/RAS) than we do at Digital. Cases in point:

	1) Motorola - has ARA and Remote-X terminal support
	   via dial-in from home with fancy keycard-based validation

	2) Apple Computer (well that's easy, they can all
	   become nodes on the world-wide AppleTalk via dialup)
 
	3) State of Texas, agencies are using Remote Netware Access

If somebody thinks we've got it made and our dial-in facilities are an
excessive priviledge, tell them to wake up.

I'll admit I haven't addressed the cost issue much in my discussion. I'm
getting tired of viewing everything we do in that context. When is
someone going to do something to improve our environment and productivity
again!

Dave,

PS: I gotta believe the people who see little value in dial-in access
    still have property passes for VT52s and DF02s. 

>PS: I gotta believe the people who see little value in dial-in access
>    still have property passes for VT52s and DF02s. 

Now hold on there!!!  I still have a property pass for a VT05!

[I hate to return it and see such a museum piece go right
into the trash heap, so I'm keeping it in the basement until
the next millenium, when it will surely be worth a fortune to
an antique collector.]

Nevertheless, I would sorely miss dialup access.

-steve-

    
    Re:
    
>    * Many employees would "do the right thing" and bypass the restriction
>    by putting in private modems on their desks.  This would reduce
>    control, be more expensive, and have inferior security.
    
    The anal retentive twits who brought up the idea of removing dial in
    access would have a very simple answer to this:
    
    	1, Write a policy that precluded people putting modems on their
    	   desk phones.
    
    	2, If that was ignored disable dialin access to all phones in
    	   the corporation. Start with the ones customers call most.
    
    	3, If people still found a way to make inbound calls remove all
    	   phones from all desk (except those in finance of course).
    
    I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF SEEING HIGHLY PAID VPS AND SENIOR
    MANAGERS EVEN CONSIDER IDEAS, LET ALONE PROPOSE THEM, THAT ARE SO DAMN
    STUPID THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS ANY IDEA AT ALL WHAT THE BUSINESS OF THIS
    CORPORATION WAS WOULD NOT EVEN BRING UP THE IDEA LET ALONE CONSIDER IT.
    
    Let's fire a few VPs. That'll produce some cost savings.
    
    Dave

    Remember, nobody said dial-up access WOULD go away, merely that it was
    an IDEA that some people are considering.... Frankly I don't think it
    will happen, but it helps to have a good list of reasons!  This topic
    has helped somewhat in collecting them.  BTW this same thing came up
    last spring as part of the wacky list of proposed telecom cost savings
    (the April 1 memo that was not meant as a joke), and some people came
    up with some good numbers there, but bad ideas have a way of getting
    resurrected.
    
    Now, wrt the quality of the dial-ins, there is much that can be done,
    but it generally requires a little bit of capital.  Individual modems
    are cheap but it's better to use multi-channel modems, which cost over
    $1k though they deliver multiple channels at once.  These are more
    manageable and maintainable.  It's also possible now to use ISDN to
    dial in at 56 kbps, but somebody has to buy the equipment, which costs
    a little more today than modems.  (Generally it operates as a remote
    LAN bridge, remote Ethernet jack to site Ethernet.)  If we make a
    decision to continue having dial-ins, somebody could then buy their
    site improved equipment.  We're looking for that money too... but
    somebody has to sign for the purchase.
    
    I will comment that many people have been paying way too much for their
    dial-in calls to date.  If you have a "1MB" (measured-service business
    line) in your house, you're paying too much:  Dial-in lines at home
    should be at residential rates, not business rates, and in your name,
    not Digital's.  In most areas, New England being one, this allows many
    lower-cost options.  Petty cash can take care of it if your manager
    approves.

    Speaking of Finance...

    Bill Steul (CFO) is holding a series of informal meetings in
    the Mill, everyone's invited, to discuss the state of Digital,
    how it got there, and how we're going to become a Leadership
    corporation again.

    The first one was last Tuesday.  I guess what surprised me the most
    was how few people came.  He would like these to be informal, people
    were invited to ask questions and/or he was prepared to give a
    presentation.  The next one will be this coming Tuesday (5:30
    in the Doriot Conf) and then one more the following Tuesday.

    These meeting would be a good opportunity to discuss things
    like this topic.  Who better to get this feedback than Bill Steul
    directly.
    bob

    
    Someone should bring a supply of over ripe fruits and vegatables and a
    dozen rotten eggs ;-)
    
    -Ed
    

    I do use WATN and think it's a useful service, but I really would like
    to have something better.  After all, I've got a PC, not a VT100.
    
    Mark

    
    I work at the CSC and when I have the pager can expect at least 10
    calls over the course of 4 nights 21:30 to 06:00. On at least a couple
    of occaisons I need to dial in to do research, or need to fax something
    through Fgate.
    
    If we didn't have dialin access I'd have a 20 minute drive each way,
    and the customer with potentially a dead database would have to wait.
    In addition when other countries run of resources we help them, so I've
    dialled internationally into customers machine to fix things.
    
    So, sure go ahead and cust modem pools, but expect to see callin go by
    massive amounts as people drive all over the place at 2am rather than
    use the technology everybody else uses!
    
    Simon

    Digital spends somewhere in the neighborhood of $300M on telecoms every
    year (a very nice neighborhood).  To senior level managers (of a
    certain type) this number looks like it'd be *real* easy to reduce. A
    lot.  Surely there must be a lot of "waste" in such a large number (so
    the reasoning goes); therefore all we have to do is to pressure the
    people who are functionally responsible (Corporate Telecoms) to reduce
    this by, say, 20% ($60M), and it will all flow right to the bottom
    line.  And Digital will become profitable again.
    
    Well, each one of us makes individual and corporate decisions every day
    to spend this money.  Every time a salesperson picks up the phone and
    calls a customer; every time someone goes searching in Notes to find a
    solution to a particularly vexing problem; every time anyone sends a
    mail, transfers a file, or uses any of the networks in any way telecoms
    expense goes up.  This is not necessarily bad because many of the
    "businesses" in this company are using telecoms to solve their business
    problems, to operate more efficiently or cost-effectively. 
    
    Groups are consolidated in one place, requiring people to use the
    telephone to access them (recent personnel assistance announcements,
    for instance).  Development teams are formed with members in the US,
    Europe, Australia and elsewhere (who need network connectivity to do
    their jobs).  Telemarketing teams are extremely efficient at generating
    revenues (1 800 PCBYDEC) and plan to use even more telephony to
    leverage sales.  Annual reports are distributed on the network; sign-up
    for insurance is handled via VTX; United Way contributions are made via
    VTX; OPAL stores canned presentations for the salesforce; and a
    gazillion other uses have been made and continue to be proposed for our
    networks.  
    
    Each of the above "applications" are business solutions to problems
    that reduce the cost or improve the efficiency of doing business.  And
    each requires telecoms to do the job.  Now, the telecoms professionals
    all across the company have generally done a very good job of reducing
    the unit costs of meeting these demands (which is the traditional
    telecoms job function).  But we are being asked now to really cut
    USAGE, as well as reduce unit costs, and we don't control usage!
    
    By taking a careful look and changing some of the ways we do business
    (like eliminating redundancy in data networks) and renegotiating
    contracts to get better deals from our suppliers, we have been able to
    identify (and implement) a number of activities which will get about
    5-10% of the figure above, without affecting service (much).
    
    Virtually any activity in cost reduction that is undertaken from this
    point will reduce service levels somewhere; there is nowhere else to
    cut.  And there is an absolute "panic" in the company to get expenses
    down, in any way possible.  What Fred has pointed out is that there is
    a certain element in the company that, even though they KNOW how much
    that telecoms does for the company, ABSOLUTELY INSISTS that Digital
    cannot afford the spend.
    
    Now you know, and I know, that removal of any substantial piece of the
    telecoms infrastructure will severely cripple our ability to do
    business, but there is that BIG $300M staring us in the face (AND 10%
    REVENUE DECLINES).  There is no easy solution here.  The expense
    squeeze has hit us all, and a number of smart people have cut their
    expenses by leveraging telecoms; now how do we even contemplate cutting
    telecoms past the service-affecting point without causing havoc among
    the customers who are using it?  I think that Fred was asking for help
    to quantify some of the possible "chaos" which could result from one
    possible action.
    
    No flames, please.  This is just the way things are right now. 

    RE .53
    
    Ah Tuesday evening. I'll be there. Hope the room is big. I even know
    how to ask intelligent civil questions.
    
    Dave

    
    Dial-In access is THE most cost effective tool Digital has.  Think of
    all the money Digital SAVES by having it.  Many people work from home
    exceeding the 40 hour work week without overtime pay.  Remove Dial-In 
    access and it now becomes difficult if not impossible to do this.  I 
    commute to work 5 days a week on my own time, I can not afford the time 
    to do this commute 7 days a week.
    
    Flame On
    It appears the some bean counters spread sheet does not have enough
    columns to cover the cost benefits associated with dial-in access.
    Flame Off

    The first thing I asked after I was hired
     I mean the VERY FIRST THING I DID was ask what node can I use and 
    what's the dial in modem number.
    
    That was more than a couple year ago and it really bothers me that 
    we have people/manager/VPs of this company who have no earthly
    clue as to what the troops use to earn this company's daily bread.
    
    Today I have two phone lines at home (neither paid for by Digital), 
    a UUCP link to 20MBytes per day of internet news, A BBS for 150+
    DECUS and Digital Customers in DFW area on some "Aquired" equipment.
    
    I do my regular work out of the office and at night (while the rates
    are low) I connect into Easynet.  It gives me technical information,
    presentation for the next day, confidential E-mail to my peers and
    product people, access to Digital source code I may need, VTX and the 
    technical NOTES conferences.
    
    I don't search these archives during the day (that would take time
    away from my job;-). Each day I'm out with customers and wait until
    I go home for easynet access and all that grunt work I should be 
    making time for at the office instead of being with customers.
    
    Cut me off and I'll just increase my bandwith and add SLIP into the 
    public nets and that link into Digital just goes away...
    
    No big loss... Or is it...
    
    Cut the modems and you cut the virtual community of professionals
    who work long hours for this company... Cut the modems and many 
    of the best Software people won't be around to miss the loss...
    
    Cut the modems?  No .. Just cut the company's wrists ... it would be 
    quicker...
    
    
    You want to reduce modem costs?  Get rid of all the DF296 9600 baud
    dial in lines and upgrade these boat anchors to 14,400 baud modems
    for about $200 each (Are DF296s still $700 each?)... 
    
    Justify the upgrade with faster files transfer speeds (2x the DF296s) 
    significantly reducing the time required to move data on each line 
    and the much lower cost (even than internal transfer) of a 14,400 
    baud modem Vs the DF296...
    
    Customers also use DSN link on DF296s... Get them faster modems for 
    dial in... and they're very cheap....(I prefer the AT&T dataports
    myself in the $200.00 range that's why I personally bought them for 
    the BBS I run (Well that and I got a SYSOP rate;-)...)
    
    Six more tapes and I'll have easynet backed up for easy offline access;-) 
    but if they pull the modems I'd miss the day to day information being 
    generated as much of it directly affects my job and my customers each
    and every day...
    
    John Wisniewski
    
    

    I'll try to quantify the issues that loss of dial-in access would cause
    in my little corner of the MCS world.
    
    1) This would would be the death knell to laptop program. This is the
    same program that the Corporation has spent/is spending mega-bucks on.
    (Also the main reason I can't quite believe they are contemplating such
    a move)
    
    2) In our 20 engineer branch (more or less), we have three people on
    standby at any given time. I know this access saves me at least 4 hours
    during every 1 week standby stint. Four hours * 1.5 (overtime) * 3
    engineers * 52 weeks = 936 hours.  We're talking about 15 to 20K per
    year multiplied by hundreds of offices accross the country.
    
    3) This one is a little harder to measure, but here goes. In hot
    customer situations, it is common for the customer to DEMAND that a
    part be replaced. With the present staffing level of the CSC's, a
    timely response is not always forthcoming in this type of situation.
    However, the engineer gets out his trusty laptop and dials into an
    online database that describes the problem and a firmware and/or
    software patch to fix it.
    
    Without dialin access, its likely that the engineer changes the part
    for no other reason than to placate an angry customer. Some of the
    parts that we might use cost in excess of $ 30K. To paraphrase, $ 30K
    here and $ 30K there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!
    This doesn't even address the eventual impact on customer satisfaction
    when the part doesn't fix the problem. 
    
    
    
    I'm sure others have much more stark examples than this. I believe this
    is what the base note was asking for, though.
    
    
    BTW, I too have invested my own $ to take advantage of the dialin
    capability. I pay for my own second phone line and just purchased a
    14.4K FAX/Data modem. I just need Digital to hold up their end.
    
    Russ
                                                               

    re: cutting dial-in capabilities and long-distance call-out access ...
    
    I think this is a good business idea. Bob Palmer wants to cut expense
    and headcount at Digital, and this action would certainly address both.
    couple this with the dissolution of Notes conferences, and most of our
    competent technical people should be out the door within weeks. Our
    headcount will drop without the need for messy layoffs, our expenses
    will go down, and BP will get another healthy raise.
    
    From a different perspective: Bob Palmer is supposed to be a big fan
    of business reengineering. But the fundamental tenant of reengineering
    is to make the process more efficient, and recoup the savings from the
    increased efficiency. Instead, we have Bill Steul who is setting cost
    reduction goals and telling people to figure out some way to make the
    process work anyway. This is completely backwards, and destructive.
    
    Whether or not it really makes sense to curb dial-in access and long-
    distance calling is irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that upper
    management did not ask Corporate Telecom to make the system better,
    they just asked it to make the system cheaper. It destroys any faith I 
    may have had in Digital ever achieving industry leadership. We're just 
    another company being milked by its executives until the bitter end. 
    
    Geoff

    I work in the field.  My job normally is at the customer site, not at
    the DEC office.  I have no contact with my peers or manager except via
    E-mail, notes, etc.  Well, true, the Digital folks could always call me
    at the customer site and bother them when they need to communicate, but
    that's not the solution.
    
    Basically, if I didn't have dial-in access, I wouldn't have access at
    all!
    
    Dave
    EIS, SWS, DS or whatever the current name is

    re .63
    
    i am terribly unhappy in that i agree with you entirely. i am even more
    unhappy that management won't listen.

    Nobody said that the full-time off-site workers would lose all
    access... of course that's small consolation!
    
    Let's cool the flames a bit... we've got some good input here!  The
    push from finance is being felt hardest in the field, where the cost of
    dial-ins is by far the greatest.  I frankly don't think anyone has a
    prayer of a chance of cutting off dial-ins to Hudson, Spit Brook or the
    other fairly autonomous engineering sites.  That's my personal opinion;
    these sites live off of it and own their own modems.  The worst problem
    is in the field, where lots of sites have little dial-in banks, each
    requiring maintenance,  and a large percentage of the calls aren't
    local.  (WIthin the GMA, most calls are local to at least one FX
    point.)  Again, some of us who actually work on the issue are looking
    for ways to a) control the cost and b) justify it to management.
    
    As an interesting aside, someone (technically-inclined) who works this
    area for a living tells me that 14.4k modems tend to have LONGER
    connect times than 9600!  WHy?  Because at that speed, it becomes
    possiblee to run remote client-server applications that are just too
    slow at 9600!  (X Windows just squeaks by at that speed.)  I just
    thought I'd mention that.  My personal project, of course, is getting
    GMA up and running at 56k dial-in, using ISDN, but nobody's offered me
    money to set up corporate ISDN dial-in banks yet.  :-(

    My first reaction to this note was to check to see that it wasn't
    April 1st.  My second reaction was to look through all the replies
    to find the note which said there was a mistake and no one was
    actually thinking about this seriously.
    
    I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly be *this*
    stupid.  I mean c'mon.  There have been a lot of stupid things
    done but this is so over-the-top that I just can't find it 
    credible that anyone could do it.  On the good side, if dial-in
    was eliminated I'd have an extra 20-30 hours a week to spend with
    my family.  I could even take a second job...
    

    Re: .66-
    
   > 							The worst problem
   >is in the field, where lots of sites have little dial-in banks, each
   >requiring maintenance,  and a large percentage of the calls aren't
   >local. 
    
    	The problem appears to be the expense of calls charged to Digital 
    via credit card, reimbursement arrangements, etc., NOT the expense of
    the dial-in lines themselves. The dial-ins are largely _receiving_ calls; 
    the expense is at the origination point.
    
    	So, where does WATN fit in? For those unfamiliar, WATN stands for 
    Wide Area Terminal Network which uses packet-switched connections
    provided via public networks to route async terminal traffic from a
    local dial-in point to a "host" located on a LAN in a Digital facility.
    From there, the usual connection is to a terminal server port which
    allows connection to services just like a direct facility dial-in.
    
    	WATN is also a LAT service on many facility LANs whereby an async
    connection can be made to a disjoint internal LAN in lieu of using 
    $ SET HOST. For example, if you're in the Maynard training center as a 
    visitor, you can access WATN from a public terminal and get great
    response time back to your office as compared to the GUEST login 
    providing DECnet access to your host system.
    
    	WATN access is available in most cities making the call local from 
    many areas. Our region maintains an information system for both local
    dial-in numbers/passwords and WATN access accounts/passwords. The
    problem seems to be that little education is provided on how this works
    and the benefits. Granted it does not provide high speeds in most
    locales, but I expect the majority of users have 2400 bps equipment
    which is easy to utilize with WATN.
    
    	One of the problems effecting expenses for the field is that there
    are few WATN access numbers which are local calls from GMA hotels due
    to (possibly) the large number of facility dial-ins already available,
    and/or the lack of WATN access points in Eastern Mass. The problem
    is that the traveler cannot use the facility local dial-ins since they 
    have no password. Thus, making long distance calls is the only
    alternative. If the traveler could get into a facility LAN local to
    their hotel, WATN could be used to connect back to their geography at
    minimal expense, IMHO.
    
    	We need to use our existing services more wisely.
    
    Phil

    re .66 etc:  It does seem unlikely that modems would be cut to the big
    engineering sites, but .0 claims that the SLT is considering just that!
    
    Here's an exercise:  compare your personal dialin costs to your salary.
    In my case, it is well under 1%.  Next, consider the percentage by
    which your productivity is increased by dial-in access.  In my case,
    I'm certain that it's way over 10% -- possibly quite a lot more.  I
    derive that number by comparing periods when I made heavy use of
    dialin to periods when I didn't.  There have even been periods when my
    productivity was nearly twice as great because I can work from home!
    
    My message to the SLT is:  sure, consider the cost of dialin -- you
    should be considering everything.  But get data before you act.  And
    don't micromanage -- leave middle managers the ability to meet their
    cost and productivity targets in the way that works best for them.
    Email, notes, and dialin from home are a *big* competitive advantage
    for Digital, at least in my part of the company.  Don't screw it up.
    
    		Larry

    I currently spend an average of 5-7 hours per week logged in from
    home, on top of the 40+ I put in at the office.  I pay the phone
    expenses (I have a separate line for the modem, but I have not asked
    to be reimbursed for it); I am more fortunate than some in that it
    is a local call for me and I have unlimited local calling.
    
    In addition to the 5-7 hours, I may put in more hours if I am home
    sick or taking vacation days for things like house repairs.   Most
    of the time is spent on business-related activities - reviewing
    test system runs, bug fixes, and answering technical questions in
    notes, mail and Internet newsgroups, activities which benefit
    Digital.  This frees up office time making me more productive.
    
    If a policy cutting off dial-in access were implemented, I would
    have to go back to my management and inform them that I would have
    to slip development schedules as my overall productivity would
    decline a significant (perhaps 10%) amount.  I imagine this
    scenario would be repeated many times over in my organization.
    The overall cost to Digital would make any presumed "cost savings"
    appear insignficant.
    
    The other effect of such a change would be to further undermine what
    little morale is left among Digital employees.  Sadly, I have come
    to the realization that upper management just doesn't care about this
    anymore.  It doesn't matter that a number of regressive policies have
    been revoked or withdrawn after having been implemented or submitted.
    The fact that such proposals even make it as far as they do says
    a lot for the "disconnect" in the upper echelons of the corporation.
    
    This is part of an overall change in the work environment - not just
    at Digital but in many other large companies.  For the past fifty
    years or so, employees and employers "worked together"; there was
    a mingling of the social and economic classes and it was possible
    for employees to have not just a job which they went to to earn
    a living, but a career which they enjoyed and considered personally
    rewarding.  What we're moving back to is the 19th century style of
    the corporate tycoons enriching themselves at the expense of the
    "working class".  Hmm, sounds vaguely Marxist, doesn't it?  It's
    not a very pleasant vision.
    
    Someone in another notesfile remarked that things must really be bad
    if "even Steve Lionel" was getting cynical, as for fifteen years I've
    been very positive and upbeat about Digital, its future, and my
    part in it.  Nowadays I try not to think too much about the future
    as it's just too depressing.  I've got my job to do, as long as it
    lasts, and I'll give Digital my best.  But a lot of the joy has been
    taken out of it by the endless series of "let's see what else we can
    do to screw the employee" dictums from above.  My immediate management
    has always been and continues to be wonderful, and I give them great
    credit for keeping the darkness from encroaching too close, but
    there's a lot which is not under their control, and I truly fear for
    the future of Digital, especially those parts of the company which
    are not as blessed as I am with good management.
    
    					Steve

    I find the tone of both .0 and .62 infammatory. Is there an expected
    reaction here *other than* that these would be foolish moves?
    
    Yes, we're all frustrated with proposals that seem to require more and
    more study and more and more analysis to reach conclusions that are
    often obvious. But the tone here has prompted over 70 replys, many by
    our most dedicated people on their own time, to learn little or
    nothing. If the (somewhat misguided) local managers in the groups where
    these proposals and/or rumors reside need facts, have them request them
    publicly. If the authors are trying to help by soliciting facts, say
    so ... but don't tie up all our time by dumping more inflammatory
    rumors here. It's hard enough trying to keep channels clear and get
    decisions done these days ....

    
>If the (somewhat misguided) local managers in the groups where
>    these proposals and/or rumors reside need facts, have them request them
>    publicly. 
    
    Frankly, looking for facts before making a decision doesn't seem to be
    all that common around here. Ready, Fire, Aim is the order of the day.
    
>If the authors are trying to help by soliciting facts, say so 
    
    The author of .0 has said several times that he is trying to gather
    facts to support his (our) case.
    
    			Alfred

    $200?  I just bought a 14.4kb modem, with compression up to 56kb,
    and it only cost me $172.   Plus $3 shipping.  To bad the DEC
    dialins only go 9.6kb.
    
    I spend little time connected.  I find the best way to edit files,
    which is what I do most of the time, is to edit them locally, then
    trnasfer them back or bring in a floppy the next morning.  If I did
    not bring the right files home with me on the floppy, then I need to
    transferr them from the office.
    
    If I had batched mail and notes transfer I would use it to further
    reduce connect time.  Too bad VMS MAIL has not evolved to support
    such things, but AppleLink has it.  Not rocket science.
    
    With winter coming, I sure would like to spend more time working
    from home, saving myself the 50 minute commute (and that is in GOOD
    weather).   Being able to work at home even 2 days a week I would
    consider a *raise*.  Compare the cost of THAT.
    

    re .73
     
    >$200?  I just bought a 14.4kb modem, with compression up to 56kb,
    >and it only cost me $172.   Plus $3 shipping.  
    
    >To bad the DEC dialins only go 9.6kb.
     
    The AT&T Paradyne modem comes with a lifetime warrentee and 
    does v.42 bis compression as well...  (External modem was $200
    internal was about $175 I'm pleased...).
    
    >If I had batched mail and notes transfer I would use it to further
    >reduce connect time.  Too bad VMS MAIL has not evolved to support
    >such things, but AppleLink has it.  Not rocket science.
    
    Eh.. I've been using VMS mail and  DECUS UUCP and DECUS MX for over 
    4 years;-)
    
    Batch mail, ANU NEWS, News to Notes programs, Message exchange between 
    TCP/IP smtp, UUCP, JNET, DECnet, and X25_SMTP.... Oh yes and the 
    price is right...it's free...  And you're right AppleLink's batch
    mailer isn't rocket science;-)
    
    >With winter coming, I sure would like to spend more time working
    >from home, saving myself the 50 minute commute (and that is in GOOD
    >weather).   Being able to work at home even 2 days a week I would
    >consider a *raise*.  Compare the cost of THAT.
    
    I'm tired of hearing about people in the North East complain about 
    the weather in Winter.  If you don't like the snow, MOVE... I did 
    over 12 years ago and have spent 12 snow free winters in Dallas...
    
    (Well that's not quite true... In January we get some snow flurries
    for 1 or 2 days;-)
    
    But telecommuting is going to be one way of reducing office space/costs
    and allow people to work whatever schedule makes the most sense.. 
    No matter what the weather is outside;-)
    
    Be seeing you,
    
    
    John Wisniewski
    
    
    

    re:.68 
    WATN is available in just about every spot in Eastern Mass.; if
    you call up the Tymnet (BTNA) number 800 (no, I don't have it handy)
    they will tell you one local to you.  BUT WATN isn't free!  We pay by
    the minute for its usage.  The pricing is a bit complex (bulk
    discounting) but as a general rule, it's cheaper than a long-distance
    call.  What's expensive is making a long-distance call to WATN, or
    dialing in to WATN via an 800 number.  The price of a direct 800 number
    call, or an MCI card interstate call, via DEC's new MCI contract, is 
    lower than WATN's 800 numbers (note that MCI is acquiring Tymnet if 
    their BT deal is approved).  NOne of this is simple stuff and none of
    this has been considered in the "shut down dial-ins" discussion, but we
    who work in this space are studying the issue in order to identify the
    cheapest alternatives.  WATN's no panacaea but it's sometimes handy.
    (BTW, my job includes doing economic analysis for Digital's networks.
    It's not trivial.)
    
    The cost of dial-in facilities is more than the modems, of course.
    There are phone lines, server ports, etc., to be managed.  Obviously
    they're worth having, but there are a fair number of beans showing.
    I really have collected a lot of good arguments via this topic already
    so, LKENNEDY notwithstanding, I'm not really looking for more flames.

Hey folks, here's a *serious* proposal to help CT reduce operating
costs in a *big* way: GET RID OF VOICE TELEPHONES in all offices except
people who have to deal directly with customers, suppliers, or others
outside the company.

I'm totally serious. There's virtually no justification for anyone else
in this company to have a telephone on his/her desk. We have one of the
most effective, efficient data networks in the world. The cost to send
an electronic mail message is almost so low as to be unmeasurable, and
the cost to store it at the recipient's site is just as low. Compare
this with the cost of data storage for voicemail, the operating costs
of such systems, and the just plain human time (secretaries, for
example) spent answering phones, half of which is spent "chatting"
about the weather or the latest football score.

Contrast this with the fact that the net benefit of dial-in access is
easily measured in person-hours of work saved or obtained by Digital.
Show me where you can even *measure* the "benefit" of voice telephones?
It's one of those "intangible" benefits. Totally unmeasurable except by
anecdotal evidence. It's about time somebody took a hard look at this
service which the company provides for free.

And you can't tell me that electronic mail is "too impersonal". If you
have a genuine, justifiable need for personal contact, then you had
just better get in your car and take a ride, because the telephone is
*marginally* more personal than e-mail. (This, by the way, is another
strong argument for consolidating plants, and moving everyone into one
large complex in a state with lower taxes, labor, and energy costs,
such as Texas).

I'd like to see *in black and white* the cost of the company's voice
telecomm expenses, and the measure "benefit" (yeah, right, where is
it?), vs the cost/benefit analysis of our data comms operations. I'm
really tired of lame arguments like "well, it's critical to business"
and "you can't take that away; we've always done it that way". If it's
so critical, *where are the numbers*?

	Well, if someone wants to get of me urgently, I'd expect them to use 
	the phone, there's no point mailing me, as I may not catch up with 
	them till at least a few hours later, or the next day, or the next week,
	depending when I next log in.

	Also, if more info or clarification is needed, the q and a session can
	take ages by mail, where it could be solved easily in a short phone 
	call.

	Electronic mail is good at some things, but not so good at others.
	Phone is good at some things, but not so good at others.

	Taking one or other away is not the answer, using them as best fits the
	user is.

	Heather

re: .76

Well, dialins (to some degree) get used 7 days, 24 hrs. a day. Desk
phones typically sit idle outside of 8AM-5PM, M-F. Seems a real waste
to have all these phones sitting around idle on desks after hours. Must
be some way to reduce this burdensome cost...

Lee

I am not complaining about the winters in New England!   I like them.
I live in the boonies because I like it there.  But there is little
reason to drive in to ZKO to sit at a desk to read and type when
I can do the same thing at home, saving thousands of dollars per
year and gaining back 2 hours of my life every day.

In an earlier reply someone mentioned that Corp. Telecomm. is being asked
to reduce their budget by 20%. I have seen memos to this effect. Those
of you who are spun up about no dial-ins would love some of the proposals
to reach this 20% reduction.

I do not have an electronic copy of the memo, nor do I have permission
to post it.

Mike (.76), you may get your wish. (But you might not have electronic
mail access to make up for it)

						Mark

.80>I do not have an electronic copy of the memo, nor do I have permission
.80>to post it.

It's already posted here somewhere... I'll post a pointer when I find it.

Lee

    Well, I spent 2 years in telecom in the field and I know what we spend.
    However, we don't have people whose direct responsibility it is to
    reduce costs in these areas.
    
    In the field, NO one is analyzing 800 number or credit card bills to
    determine long phone calls (for dial-in access) and how they could be
    made cheaper. For example, I have an office that is within my local
    calling area but there is not dial-in access from that facility to the
    network. So, I use my credit card to dial in. I know that just my usage
    alone could justify a leased line from the the facility to the main
    facility. I've asked and gotten nowhere because no one is responsible.
    
    This is the case in general. If we analyzed what is would take to rent
    a closet for this purpose for people who need access (and it's no
    cheaper to use WATN), then we could really cut dial-up costs. I'd rent
    space in my garage for people that live south of me but are within my
    calling area for this purpose.
    
    Conference rooms are not restricted to local calling only. We in the
    field have credit cards. We should be using them if we want to call
    from conference rooms to allocate the costs to our cost centers.
    
    Phones enabled for long distance don't have security codes to restrict
    long-distance calling only to the phone's owner. 
    
    We don't implement call tracking to regulate "possible" abuse of long
    distance dialing privs.
    
    FAX machines aren't restricted. If you want to send a FAX outside your
    local calling area, you should have to use your credit card. Typically,
    outside the calling area is more expensive than the $.13/minute $.03
    surcharge we currently are  charged by AT&T. I don't know the current
    rate schedule for the new MCI contract.
    
    If we actively cost shifted these costs to the cost center managers, we
    could then have these costs more tightly controlled than they are now.
    
    In addition, there are items which are shared in a facility. Modern
    computer technology should allow us to allocate the variable costs of
    these devices to the appropriate cost centers.
    
    IMHO, only when the manager responsible for the costs actually see them
    and budget for them will their direct reports feel compelled to control
    these costs.

    re .79
    
    I like my commute into work.. it's the only time I can listen to 
    music...;-)
    
    And don't forget the coffee...
    
    Some things just can't be brought down to Dollars and Sense...
    
    Be seeing you,
    
    John Wisniewsk

Since we are beginning to wind down this string on cost cutting by silliness 
( eliminate employee interest notes, dial-in modems ) let me ask a more serious
question on our network expenses. Is there a topology that we can put in place
to eliminate duplicate links? The last time I saw a major layout (over a year 
ago) of the E-net topology there were many sites that had multiple links to
other  sites, and yes I understand the front door/back door and cost setting
aspects of forcing traffic to preferred links. But given the costs of those
links and the theory  that they have little measurable  benefit, should we
consider eliminating the costs of the redundant backup links?

Would the elimination of the backup links to the smaller sites seriously affect
our ability to deliver service and product?

How would this help the mandate to reduce Telco costs?

/jon

    re:.last
    We do have an activity in place to cut down on redundant links.  In
    most cases, we have two links to a site (not counting hub sites)
    for reliability.  But the circuits are pretty reliable nowadays, and we
    can use swtiched dial-up data circuits (56-128 kbps) for those
    occasional down-times as an alternative to paying full-period backup
    rates.  This and other "sensible" ideas are already being worked.
    
    The problem is that these alone don't save 20% of the total telecomm
    budget.  That's the sum of site 800 numbers, CSC 800 calls, everyone's
    calling cards, local telephone lines and site PBX systems, extended
    LAN circuits, and lots of other things, most of which are "purchased"
    by sites or individuals.  We in "corporate" can't control them.  We do
    need individual users to pay more heed to their telecom spending;
    still, we realize that there's only so much you can do before the
    payback goes steeply negative.

As a software developer, I do 10 hours of work via dialin every week,
considerably more if I'm busy - working from home has less interruptions,
less distractions (no kids!) and therefore more productivity - without
the commute.  It also allows me to tune systems during off hours
(while no one is using them) and to do installations and upgrades
without disturbing other users as well...

This proposal makes as much sense as one I heard last year -
putting all DEC hardware in the building on 3rd party contracts
and getting rid of in house field service...

Hey, maybe we could do that with Finance?  Just contract it out!

re: .-1

>Hey, maybe we could do that with Finance?  Just contract it out!

Now, there's a suggestion worth investigating  . . . 

�-:^)
-Jack

Several replies have mentioned concerns that I have:

o       I spent a couple thousand $$s of my own on a Macintosh, etc.,
        to create a usable office at home.  By transferring files
        to and from work, I have a link that allows me to work
        many productive hours at home.

o       By dialing in, I can work on sick days (mine or my kids')
        or any day when I have to be home for any number of reasons.
        And I can work overtime at home to meet deadlines or deal
        with emergencies.

Furthermore, I'm a single, working parent.  Without the flexibility that
working from home affords me, I'd be severely handicapped.  Other
repliers have mentioned how they're able to be with their families while
they're putting in hours for Digital.  Forcing all of us to go back to
our offices to do useful work is criminal to families who don't see
enough of us to begin with.  At a minimum, it'd be sad -- at most it
would cost us the ability to do our job at all and still be responsible
parents.  How do you measure that kind of cost?  

Cathy

    Does anyone know what happened to DECWRL::, the gateway from the
    Easynet to the outside world?  I've been sending messages through it
    for years, but now my outbound mail bounces with unknown node!
    
    ???
    
    Ws

    re:.90
    This is the wrong topic for that, but DECWRL is not supposed to take
    direct stuff anyway.  Use US1RMC, US2RMC or US3RMC if you're in the US,
    or your other local mail concentrator.

From:	MR4DEC::EXPAT::VNS "The VOGON News Service  03-Nov-1993 0438"  3-NOV-1993 05:09:42.23
To:	VNS-Distribution
CC:	
Subj:	VNS #2948  Wed  3-Nov-1993

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2948            Wednesday  3-Nov-1993            Circulation :  6560 

                     Telecommuting Improves Productivity

    Mom, apple pie, and the bottom line all benefit from telecommuting,
    according to a study on the social impact of telecommuting by the
    Oakland, CA based Institute for the Study of Distributed Work. The
    survey shows that working at home dramatically increases employee
    productivity and job satisfaction. According to the study, work-at-hone,
    telework centers, and telecommuting programs are achieving  results that
    car-pooling has not. The study was conducted to help Bay area companies
    comply with the federal clean air act, which requires companies with
    100 employees or more to reduce commuting by 25% by 1996.
    {Information Week Sept 27, 1993}

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That base note is the funniest thing I've seen in here in a long time!

(Sorry, I didn't read all of the relies, but I'm assuming this is a joke,
planted under the guise of being a "real cost cutting consideration.")

Just imagine... lets prevent our salaried employees from doing extra work
after hours and on weekends and holidays, because of the cost of a modem!

Hee hee hee....   That's a good one!   8-)

Maybe next we can kick everybody out of the office at 5:00 to save money on 
utilities.

Or shut the phone system down for a couple of hours a day to reduce the 
number of phone calls!

This has all sorts of possibilities!   8^)

Bob

    Re .93: Not so funny.
    
    Management at a computer company make a policy:
    
    "No access allowed to any facilities on weekends or holidays; VP
    approval required for any exception".
    
    This was before networks.  So nobody had ANY facilities to use at home,
    except paper and pencil.           
    
    The cost saved was maintenance, security, insurance, HVAC, lighting,
    etc.
    
    Of course, in following months new competition appeared, formed from
    GOOD contributors who jumped ship rather than descend to forging VP
    signatures.
    
    It was said that the new manager had a goal of cutting employment
    costs, so the result boosted his worth in the company.  But I don't
    usually believe such conspiracy theories.  
    
    Chicken or egg? That company has consistently declining market share.
    
    Change of focus.  Timliness of information is well known to be worth
    money.  How many sales are we willing to lose to competition, to
    save 20%?  How many products are we willing to miss development
    deadlines, to save 20%.  Some marketing people put opportunity value
    at $1M/day.
    
    Fewer people, working harder, in teamwork more immediate
    more timely and flexible, are at the heart of a new management
    paradigm.  Now, explain to me how you are helping make this happen by
    reducing communication options!  
    
    Once a manager was under pressure to reduce computer resources used by
    his staff.  He responded by challanging the staff, on reward of a
    competitive edge in the next review, to develop and demonstrate the
    best new use of computer resources in accomplishing their own job.
    
    Isn't there a need to lead into opportunity, as a considered balance to
    cut-cut-cut?

     HOMEWORK PASSES THE SCREEN TEST
                                                                          
        There are many advantages of working from home.  With modern
    technology
        more jobs can be done by so called 'teleworkers', who simply set up
        office in their front room with a telephone, computer and a fax
        machine.  Around 250,000 people have given up the slog to work this
        way.  And supporters believe it could alter the whole fabric of
        society, allowing people to escape polluted cities and live in more
        desirable rural areas.  One idea of achieving this is to create
        telecottages and televillages with telecommunications equipment and
        computers that local people can use.  So far, few big private
    sector
        companies have woken up to the advantages of teleworking.  The
        corporate pioneers are those who have the technology to make it
    work,
        such as IBM, ICL and Digital and telecoms companies BT and Mercury.
    
        Daily Express, London.  3rd November 1993
    

	Lets hope we don't dismantle the system too soon. New York as well
as several other states will soon be required to reduce commuter travel, and
telecommuting will be one logical choise. To paraphrase an article in
the november New York Motorist (AAA) mag, the nine metro regions in the us with
the worst air quality must submit a plan by Nov 1994 requiring busniesses with 
100 or more employees to reduce their commuting car trips. The plan has to
demonstrate a 25% increase in "average passenger occupancy per vehicle" by 1996
or lose federal highway funds. Are they serious? Just look at all those 
55 MPH speed limit signs on our highways. 

    It's too bad management is spending so much time trying to cut
    legitimate costs and not spending equal time or more time finding
    ways too make money,ie,sell product,straighten out the service contract
    mess,etc.

    I know this has been said before, but imho there's another area that
    MANAGEMENT should be targeting.  I can imply it, but strangely enough
    that thought doesn't actually seem to be speakable around here.  :-) 
    
    Or, when it IS spoken, it seems to be immediately ignored.
    
    I would also like to register strong agreement with whomever it was,
    earlier in this string, who cricitized the backwards way in which
    organizations' performance was "supposed" to be optimized BY cost
    reductions, rather than cost reductions being realized by optimizing
    the organization and its function, and then letting the benefits flow
    from that.  Another example, if one were needed, of our not practicing
    what we preach.  
    
    At a time when the network is poised to be a significant marketing and
    internal intelligence-enhancing asset, to cut it willy-nilly (i.e.,
    without regard to that, but simply across-the-board) seems to be, shall
    we say, counterproductive.  Size the expense to the current employee
    population, to be sure; take into account the growth in demand that is
    likely to flow from new network access tools and their benefits; but
    don't, please, start with the bottom line and work upwards.  That is
    the symptom of unthinking bureaucracy that will sink us.  Imho.
    

    The base note suggestion's no worse than others I've seen this year
    (calendar).
    
    Para 'n' of a cost saving instructions read to the following effect:
    
    We will save all possible travel cost by much greater use of phone calls,
    conference calls and video-conferencing.
    
    Para 'n+several' of the same document:
    
    We will save at least 10% of our phone costs by reducing all types of
    use of the telephone.
    
    They couldn't see any inconsistency :-)

    My esteemed IM&T colleague, Bob Fleischer, has made a great suggestion
    that imho we would all do well to implement, using whatever group
    spirit & creativity we have to carry the idea forward.  
    
    He's too busy to post this, I guess... :-)
    
    Here's the deal:  We can all do our part to save at LEAST 20% of the
    EasyNet bandwidth by taking several easy steps.
    
    I am hoping that others will chime in, as I myself have done in
    conversation with Bob Fleischer, and think of more.
    
    * Get accounts on nodes with fewer than 6 chars in their NAMES::.
    
    * Work with site management to shorten ::UserNames.
    
    * Use shorter DECnotes Personal_Names.  I myself, as close readers of
      ::DIGITAL will have noted already, have manfully shortened my P_N
      from "I CyberSurf the Web with NCSA Mosaic" to the pithy but equally
      xhortatory "RTFW".  And it's even on the same subject! :)
      
    * Emulate a certain faraway NotesFriend of mine & try 2 use a short
      abbrev fr high-freq wrds wherever U can.  # & @ & $ & & & = & + & % & 4 &
    * & 1 & 2 & 6 & 8 & 9 (in Germn) & Q & T & R r WORDS!!  Wotta CONCEPT!!
    
    * Shorten .SIG files on Mail and Notes messages.  Nobody likes having
      to read 'em anyhow.  "A canned witticism is a dead 1." 
    
    * Emphasize with CAPITALS; eschew *this* & _this_.  Do without " marks 2.
    
    * Emulate Hebrew.  Omit vwls whervr pssbl.  Let cntxt cues hlp save net
      bndwdth.  Kinda like transmttg cmpresd, & depndng on th procesg pwr
      of t rcvr to rplc t cntent.  So what if ths expnds 20% of th brainpwr
      of yr fellw DECCies in rdng yr txt?  (Or 30% of YORS in doig th
      cmprsg??)  The imprtnt thg z that we sve ntwrk bndwdth & asociatd $. 
      Prfts do NOT cm frm r usng r brains.  
                 
    * Sv mr spce & refr 2 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION as DEC.  (intrnlly
      ONLY, of crse)
    
    * Shrtn emoticons.  Make do without noses.  :) saves 33% right there
      over :-) !!  C how EZ?
    
    * Shrtn grp nams or use acrnyms whrvr pssbl.  The potntl of this svngs
      were made clr 2 me this PM (note savgs frm use of "PM" fr
      "afternoon") when a listg wth my VMSmail P_N was truncatd.  So I wl
      prpse tht my grp hencefrth not be knwn as the "Digital Information
      Delivery Utility" but as the "DEC Info Deli".  Kinda gets acrss the
      idea that accessg info will/shld be FUN.  ("I'll have that cost
      report on wry with a side of DEC stock quote, & garnish with VOGON 2
      taste.")
      
    * Bob & I r sur U cn thk of more waz 2 sv $.  Dn't dsapnt us.
    
    F I ma, I'd like 2 clse with anthr "Quotatn Frm Chmn Bob:"
                                             
           "If U thnk Information is Expnsv, Try Ignrnce."
    

    re: -1
    
    T's grt!
    
    Ld it
    
    & dn't 4gt 2 rmv pnctuatn mrks  

Re .100:

(As you asked me to point out here...)

>    * Emphasize with CAPITALS; eschew *this* & _this_.  Do without " marks 2.

Using capitals for emphasis saves even more than you let on; capitals use
fewer of those expensive 1 bits than lower case.

(Dan pointed out that 0's are even more environmentally correct than 1's).
				/AHM

DER LN:

I FL IT INCUMBNT UPN ME 2 ASK U 2 PST YR ADENDUM TO ::DEC 2749.  I M
IN YR DET SIR.  I HD NGLCTD TO NCLUD PWR SAVGS FRM SWTCHG FRM DFLT 0
BIT STATE 2 THE LSS NVRONMNTLY CORECT 1.  TNX AGIN.

MST NTS N THS FL CD B NUL WTH NO LSS F MEANNG.

   AndwhataboutspacesAfteralldowereallyneedthemTheancientgreeksseemedtodofine
   withoutthemDidancientHebrewusethemIdontthinkso
   
   Nthtcswcnlmntvnmrbgttngrdfbthspcsndvwls.

                             -< THEANCIENTSDIDIT >-

   ANDWHATABOUTSPACESAFTERALLDOWEREALLYNEEDTHEMTHEANCIENTGREEKSSEEMEDTODOFINE
   WITHOUTTHEMDIDANCIENTHEBREWUSETHEMIDONTTHINKSO
   
   NTHTCSWCNLMNTVNMRBGTTNGRDFBTHSPCSNDVWLS.
    
    
    PS -- RE .104 -- THATS EZ 4 U 2 SAY, U'R SO FAR AHED WTH ONLY A 2-CHR NODE!
    
    :)
    

I think some vacations are _looooonng_ overdue...

I got the following forwarded to me, and I believe it was intended for wide
distribution, so I feel it's ok to post it here.

				Steve

To:	@Distribution_List
CC:	
Subj:	DIAL-IN LINES                                                          1

From:	NAME: Patrick Spratt                
	FUNC:                                 
	TEL: 226-2554                         <SPRATT.PATRICK AT A1_LJSRV2@MAILMN@LJO>
To:	See Below


    
    
    I spoke with Vin Mullarkey about this, and Bill Steul responded to a 
    memo from Larry Walker on the subject.
    
    There is no plan or proposal to eliminate dial-in lines.  Bill did say 
    we should be minimizing/eliminating credit card charges (which are more 
    expensive) and personal call use of the lines.  They both recognize the 
    value and necessity of these lines to get work done.
    
    We should do our best to dampen the rumor mill noise.
    
    Regards,
    Pat
    
    
    
    /dm

    On personal call use. I surely hope that outside calls wouldn't 
    be "banned" on peoples lines. Cost center managers get monthly
    itemized bills on phone useage in their group. They should be
    working with their reports to keep useage to a minimum.
    
    Worst case and I'm sure it's been or will be looked into is
    billing the employee for outside calls. I know other, maybe not
    many, companies do this. Depending on ones job some outside
    calls are job related and some aren't. Some sort of compromise
    could be reached on what is owed.
    
    I've always been amazed at the abuse. About 10 years ago my line
    was being charged over $100.00 a month to a number in Michigan,
    I work in Mass. The line was traced to a relative of a person in
    my group who worked second shift. Amazing, this went on for months
    and all that happened was the person was told to stop. 
    
    Jim C.
    

    I guess seeing an "official" memo saying that dial-up access will
    continue makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, eh? If you happen to be
    outside that "local calling zone", I have a feeling that you may
    already be reading what I have read.
    
    My (reasonable, I think) phone bill with manager marks that say 
    (in RED) "CEASE AND DESIST". I no longer feel I can use my (new) MCI
    card for anything. As the saying goes, "The squeaky wheels get
    greased". I feel I gain enough knowledge and experience, not to mention
    training from the Easynet to justify it's use, but apparently my boss
    doesn't. Times sure are a'changin'...
    
    .mike.

    Re: .110-
    
    	Isn't there a WATN number within your local calling zone? If not,
    you should be an exception case to justify your "reasonable" bill.
    
    	I explained to our regional telecom analyst recently that there
    is little done to educate employees about WATN and its use, esp. on
    how to identify a local number when traveling. Charging of long distance
    call to connect to an office 500 miles away is one of the primary
    reasons these connections are being scrutinized. It's not so much the
    cost of the ports, rather the cost of their existance on the PSTN
    combined with ignorance of alternatives.
    
    	Granted, local WATN ports have the same potential for receiving
    long distance calls. Simplifying use through educating users and making
    access numbers available via on-line internal databases could surely
    enhance participation.
    
    Phil

    1-800- dtn access no longer works....what gives???
    

    I just dialed it with no problem. Take note: when it asks you for your
    authorization number you must still use your AT&T calling card number.
    
    (I don't know if this is what was nailing you, but we recently received
    our MCI cards and foolishly thought it was to replace the AT&T card.
    Unfortunately, we now use the MCI card for long distance numbers, but
    we still need the AT&T number to use 1-800-dtn.)
    
    	BD�

Re: .113

Not true.  You can dial DTN numbers using the MCI card.  All you do is dial the
normal access number (950-1022 or (800)950-1022).  When it asks for the telephone
number you just enter 8 + 7 digit DTN, followed by you MCI card number.

This is explained, somewhat cryptically, on the back of the card.  They call it
the Private Plan Number.

I've already used it several times and it does work.

Larry

    Re: Note 2749.114 by NESSIE::SOJDA
    
�number you just enter 8 + 7 digit DTN, followed by you MCI card number.
    
    Aha! I didn't do the 8 (you don't have to do the 8 if you're going to
    use the AT&T number). I haven't tried it yet, but I'll take your word
    for it.
    
    	BD�

    re:.110
    Mike, I don't know your specifics, but we did a little snooping around
    with just our own department's bills...
    
    At least HALF were set up wrong.  We had MEASURED BUSINESS lines in
    houses, which is ridiculous!  Lines in houses should be Residential
    rate, with no local usage charges (in MA and NH)!  Now there are some
    totally obscure variations in tariff rates, especially in MA, so
    getting the right service option may be confusing.  And up in NH, you
    might just be out in the boonies not local to anything.  But something
    like 50% of the total expenditure was excessive, not because it was
    used too much but because we paid too much.
    
    This whole string started when I began working on ways to fix the
    problem, and was discouraged because they just wanted to shut it all
    down instead.  For now, we users are ahead, and I for one hope to have
    a way of finding your "least cost" calling set up.

    Re: 110, 116-
    
    	I took it that the phone bill under discussion was credit card
    charge related based upon .110's questioning the usefulness of the
    new MCI card. Is a company paid home line is involved as well?
    
    	The audit results mentioned in .116 do show areas where costs can 
    be reduced. Good work. Common sense. Now, what is being done to expand
    WATN features and educate employees on its use? We need proactive moves
    by corporate telecom in advance of changes and in response to audits
    rather than continual scrutiny and chastisements, IMHO.
    
    Phil