Conference 7.286::digital

    Let's see if this makes sense. It's the mid-90's and you're buying new 
    modems so that you can attach to a bunch of new PC clients onto an 80's 
    style network which is running 80's style systems with 70's style software
    on them. And the whole thing is run by a 60's style organization, with
    a 50's level budget. Hmmm.
    
    -OFWAMI- 

    	I don't think it's all 80's networks. From my perspective I'm here
    working on getting information out on the WWW. Field people can dial
    into Pathworks pull files into Word or what ever run through Internet
    Assistant and out comes the HTML for the WWW. I agree our internal
    networks maybe old but there's still alot of information there.
    Software like netrider aleast allows the PC clients some dialup access
    into Pathworks and the ability to open a number of file services which
    helps us get information on the Web. It doesn't happen overnight but at
    least we are moving into the future.

    Well, the UNOFFICIAL (but I suspect accurate given the content) rumor 
    here was that there was a recognition by someone that it would be a
    productivity aid to install 28.8 modems at some/most/all field sites. 
    A pilot was done and SOME sites actually GOT modems that are at least
    close to current (I don't know who, but it SURE wasn't us)...  
    
    And it worked, so supposedly there was a deal in the works to buy 3000
    28.8 modems.  BUT, supposedly some VP refused to sign the final
    agreement to get them, and the deal is now on hold/dead/never was...
    
    So, if you aren't at one of the sites "selected to participate" in the
    "pilot", you're SOL...

    re:.2
    Glad to see someone gets access to Internet.  Sales out here in Irvine
    is in the "Dead Zone."  Only access to CNS is via 9600 Baud dial-in
    modems, all of us are now in "home" offices scrambling around trying to
    get 14.4 or 28.8 modems working (which they aren't).  Meanwhile we get
    notes about other areas of the country who can get to Internet and the
    WWW !  Isn't it great working for the premier computer networking
    company in the world ? 

    Everything is relative, you're not happy with 9600, this is produced a 
       t   2    4    0   0 , oh to get up to 9600...
    
    Steve.

    re: .4
    
    I don't want to get in the middle of any flame wars, but if you really
    _want_ to use the WWW access you already have, see 3715.37.
    
    -Tom

    The office in Dallas, Texas already has the 28.8 modems in place and
    working. Houston is still limping along at 9600. For reading mail and
    such, it doesn't make much difference. However, I'm a PC support
    engineer in the field. I often have to dial in so that I can FTP a file
    from a distant site to download the latest drivers for a flaky device
    (video card, system BIOS, CD-ROM, sound card, etc).
    
    It takes 35-45 minutes to get a 1.4 meg file to my home system at 9600
    baud. It would only take 12 minutes or so at 28.8. I'm even prepared to
    buy MY OWN 28.8 modem for my system if I have to. I'm sure I'd find
    other uses for it! :-)
    
    There's no rocket science involved here. The slow access impacts my
    ability to service more customers. I can't head for a site until I get
    the files that I need. (I suppose that I could take my laptop to the
    site and wait for it to download at 2400 baud. That would only take
    about 3 hours!)
    
    This is the same mentality that provides the field with UNformatted
    diskettes because they're a few cents cheaper per diskette. I wonder if
    any of our infamous bean counters have sat down and figured out how
    much it costs Digital for someone to sit and wait for all ten of
    those diskettes in each box to format... It's not a quick process! :-(
    
    Harry
    

I think after reading through this thread I'll keep quiet about the
occasional problem I have with the kilostream link to my home (64Kbit)
:)

Chris.

    Our NorthEast folks were operating with Scholar 2400s (note, that's
    *not* the ScholarPlus, which at least has a speaker).  We dialup
    clients during the day and download/upload files.  My take is that a
    19.2 modem at WalMart (which includes fax software) is $79 and the
    difference in transfer time at prime phone rates should pay for this
    somewhere around the second file transfer.
    
    I have been notified that the Russian consulate will no longer accept
    Scholars as donations.  "We are desperate, but we are not *that*
    desperate!", exclaimed Russia's Minister of Technology, Yakov
    Shiniratov.  "Shipments of Scholar modems will now be taxed at five
    hundred millon Rubles per kilogram."
    
    Although this represents only about $1 per modem, it appears it might
    be sufficient deterrent to stop the scows laden with old Scholars from
    docking at Russian ports.  New Jersey, as usual, is being considered as
    a dump site and has suggested they will charge only $.50 per modem.
    
    								Tex

    To the person in note .1 - I know of very few Fortune 500s (and we have
    12 of them in Pittsburgh) that have such global info and network access
    via integrated IS-IS backbones running TCP/IP, DECnet, and OSI. Getting
    out of the BUILDING is often a major task for most of 'em.
    
    ---
    
    We have a GREAT infrastructure from the backbone perspective - it's now
    the edge devices.  Digital WILL pay for it.  They always will - be it
    folks hiding modem purchases in expenses, folks wasting time
    downloading on old modems, or multiple-incompatible sites.  
    
    What we really lack is GOOD INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING and RESPONSIBLE
    folks who can make the connection between lost time, hidden costs and
    actually acknowledge the costs where they should be (i.e. IM&T or
    whatever they are called) as well as the chargeback per use to see
    who/how the stuff is used.
    
    So, who in IM&T is going to do this as a RESPONSIBLE organization? 
    THEY should be taking the lead, no?
    
    ttfn,
    j
    ^--who just bought 2 modems - one for ME and one for the BRANCH (and we
    now have 4 soon to be 5 and growing as we're starting an internal
    campaign to COOPERATE here and do it....grumble....!)

    RE: .10-
    
    	No Jon, IM&T is not sleeping, they are wringing their hands about
    "NO MONEY". My $.02 is that EasyNet/ Corporate Telecomm has no interest 
    in access efficiency beyond the facility. 
    
    	This is definitely not in keeping with the H.O.M.E. program trend
    IMHO...
    
    	Circumventing IM&T and installing renegade equipment is admirabele
    but may result in political debate as to rights & ownership of
    equipment..
    
    Phil

    There are some issues which are driving the installation of the
    28.8 modems and other more efficient remote access capabilities by the 
    telecoms organizations.
    
    First and foremost, while a number of CARs have been written, they are
    being denied at senior levels because often the senior managment of the
    business units (IM&T customers) are continuing to tell IM&T management
    to reduce costs.  This continual cost reduction means certainly that
    network infrastructure could be reduced since this is our primary 
    business and therefore primary cost item.  
    
    One new organizational development that should be helpful to field 
    to get their needs recognized is the establishment of business unit CIOs
    who work with the IM&T senior management.  Where you can get your 
    messages about productivity (ie time to download software, customer
    satisfaction at quicker problem resolution, etc) to your senior folks
    who deal with the BU CIOs, then the result should help GT&NS (Global
    Telecommunications & Network Services) secure the appropriate
    signatures. 

    I thought that IM&T was supposed to be a leader doing this with the BU
    CIO folks (whoever they are?).  I never knew that the BUs had
    CIOs....that is all corporate gunque that is pretty far removed from
    the field and customer - where it hits the road.
    
    How much time will it take for everybody in the field PUSHING
    internally (and not workign with customers) to get this message across
    and how much $ will we waste by doing it....?
    
    Aarugh,
    j

So what is our $30-$50 per node address per month paying for?

				Steve

>So what is our $30-$50 per node address per month paying for?

I would have to guess, the existing infrastructure.  For those sites which
are offering SLIP dial-up access, there is an additional monthly charge (at
least in the western area, according to the memo I saw).

--Scott

>>So what is our $30-$50 per node address per month paying for?

>I would have to guess, the existing infrastructure.  For those sites which
>are offering SLIP dial-up access, there is an additional monthly charge (at
>least in the western area, according to the memo I saw).

    So, are you saying that if you locate all IP hosts in a different 
    facility on the LAN than the SLIP server's facility you avoid the 
    additional charge? I don't understand the rationale..
    
	Phil

Ummmm...  Could you repeat the question?   Well, re-reading my registration
confirmation I mis-read the charge part.  The charges may be started when
the long term plan is implemented, which is basically upgrading the modems
to 28.8. 

    	To restate the question, if the host is not in the same facility
    as the 28.8 modems and the host is LAN connected, does the entire LAN
    area incur charges for all hosts when the modems are upgraded? 
    
    Phil

The stuff I saw only referenced those people that had signed up for SLIP access
as having a possible additional charge.

    
    re: .12
    
    >First and foremost, while a number of CARs have been written, they are
    >being denied at senior levels because often the senior managment of the
    >business units (IM&T customers) are continuing to tell IM&T management
    >to reduce costs.  This continual cost reduction means certainly that
    >network infrastructure could be reduced since this is our primary 
    >business and therefore primary cost item.  
    
    
    Hmmmmm.
    Thats one angle. On the other hand perhaps the message IM&T should be
    getting is to work smarter (hold the flames for a second). You could
    "reduce costs" by investing some capital in modems to reduce the
    overtime charges. If A has X things to do today and has to do X-N on
    overtime because (s)he spent 2 hours staring at a 2400 modem then 1.5
    hours of overtime could have (theoretically) been saved.
    
    I think I know the down side though. The bean counters (Sorry, time to
    bash the BC's again) view labour costs as somewhat "fixed per person"
    (although they will admit that OT rates are variable). If you want to
    justify capital expense by offsetting labour, then tell me who to
    "rightsize".
    
    Rob Wall
                
    

Re: .-1

The problem with that logic, and the crux of many problems in the current
upheavals within Digital is that the organization that expends the extra
overtime for employees staring at 2400 baud connections is different from
the organization which shaved costs by not buying more reasonable
modems (i.e. IM&T).

This is known as cost shifting, although it is universally portrayed by those
so engaged as "cost savings".

In the above example, the IM&T organization looks good because they held
down costs by not investing in new equipment.  There is no downside feedback.

The customer organization is made to look bad, as their employees are
effectively less efficient at the end of a slow wire.  (and put there by the
"home" program, which saved BIG bucks for facilities organizations...)

What we need is to close the feedback loop such that additional costs incurred
by consumer organizations get factored into the equation.  If group A saves
$1M, but causes groups B, C, and D to spend an additional $2M, it is
not a good deal for Digital.

Kevin Farlee