Conference 7.286::digital

>   One of the clear benefits is unlike cellular, you only pay for what you
>   use so there are no penalties for staying "on-line" for a long time,
>   making it potentially cheaper than cellular.
    
    Can you explain why? Thanks.
    
    Hung

    The basenote is probably talking about radio packet data.
    
    Such networks are based on RF optimized implementations of other 
    packetizing protocols (e.g. X.25) which usually have a policy of
    charging per data packet rather than by connect time.  Hence, I 
    believe, the statement about no penalties for staying online.
    
    In that context however, "online" is misleading.  Currently there are
    very few "online" services that work well, if at all, over RF packet
    data.   It is suitable to custom applications that have an optimized
    short message passing protocol. e.g. if you were thinking about keeping
    a TCP/IP connection "online" between a mobile laptop and a fixed server 
    you would have to make some big tradeoffs between re-activate time and 
    cost of packets sent just to keep signs of activity present.
    
    There ain't no free lunch.

    Also, in .0 can you explain what the 'field' will actually use this
    for?  And if the fielstest is only a couple weeks, and you won't solve
    the bandwith problem, then what will the test actually be about?
    
    Also, if you don't understand most of the TLA's that the field uses
    on a day to day basis, then how can you understand the results
    of the testing?
    
    Guess it's about time SOMEONE starts to challenge the sometimes
    'seemingly' stupid things that go on in the corporate world!!  If
    this is not something seemingly stupid, than a simple exlaination
    is all that's needed.  Your base note did not do a good job in
    explaining the basics.
    
    chet
    

    re -.1
    
    It is for ARDIS to shake out their project. The note clearly states
    that. We in turn get to be guinea pigs and learn something.
    
    I like the part about MS Exchange and 2400 baud. Guess reality will
    hit them in a few....
    
    Haha.
    Mike Z.

I tried to be brief in my basenote in the hopes of not getting into too much
detail but I guess I should have known better.

There are several areas of Service Delivery that have been identified that can
be improved.  One of which is the lack of real-time, quality information to the
field and by 'field' I guess I mean people who have frequent contact with 
customers.  If a customer is in need of service and we send someone out who is
in need of up to date information, how can they get it?  Paper is out as is
information on floppy or CD as it simply changes too quickly. The same can be
said for sales information, customer databases and a whole lot of other stuff. 

A second area that could benefit from this is that of logging and retrieving 
data about the problems being attended to.  When someone goes to a customers
site there is the need to enter/edit information about that problem.  As I
understand it today, this is done largely over the phone.  Often this takes
several exchanges and burns up time both for the person in the field as well as
the person on the other end of the phone. 

As first blush the solution seems quite simple - plug your laptop into a nearby
phone jack at the customer's site and away you go.  It turns out, that while
some customers don't mind, the general feeling is that we should NOT be using
customer resources to conduct our business, hence the need for some other
mechanism.  One that works fine is cellular, but that can also be very
expensive. It is hoped that as packet radio transmission rates increase and 
costs go down, there be a point at which this will become cheaper than
cellular.

The purpose(s) of the pilot then are to both validate the technology as being
both usable (even at slow transmission rates) as well as useful and to see if
it can indeed help make us more efficient.

-mark

    Re .5
    
    So my understanding is that Digital (MCS) wants to use this technology
    to enhance internal communication. Is there another relationship
    between Digital and Ardis in such a way that we can integrate their
    technology or products in our products and sell to customers? I guess,
    no. If yes, can you say more?
    
    Hung

>    Is there another relationship
>    between Digital and Ardis in such a way that we can integrate their
>    technology or products in our products and sell to customers? I guess,
>    no. If yes, can you say more?
    
this is something that may develop over time as we learn more about the 
technology.  Once the pilot starts people are certainly welcome to get demos
and see the technology in use...

-mark

    This is certainly NOT new technology. Ask any IBM/TSS Field type about
    his "brick", and they will inundate you with horror stories. But it
    *does* work, even it is 2 (3?) lines of plasma-looking text. It's
    nothing more than a Motorola Walkie-Talkie, and they've been in use for
    decades.
    
    .mike.

>    This is certainly NOT new technology. Ask any IBM/TSS Field type about
>    his "brick", and they will inundate you with horror stories.

you are absolutely correct, though for Digital is it late breaking,
state-of-the-art  8-(... 

the good news is this is not a 'brick' but rather a full function laptop, though
I'm certain this environment will come with a whole different set of issues and
hence the trial.

-mark

	... never been refused, or even begrudgingly given, access to a customer's
phone system for dial-out to the Digital network. One even set up a dedicated line
for me!

    >... never been refused, or even begrudgingly given, access to a customer's
    > etc.
    
    I was a resident at a customer site that allowed my $2 worth of calls
    per month (and these included business related calls). Anything over that,
    and I had to give them a check. 
    
    Deb

    re: the brick vs laptop.
    
    if a simple 'brick' will do the job, its just like DEC to generalize the
    solution to a full function laptop. It will cost more, take more people
    to run it, and have more ways to fail or confuse the user. It will offer
    43 optional ways to do the same job, all of them designed by someone in
    corporate that has never been on site with a customer waiting for you to
    get his machine up.
    
    

    As a field engineer I understand the need for better information
    exchange. I would love to be involved in the project.
    
    Oh I forgot, I need a laptop that can run Win95, and the modem card. I
    guess you can count me out.
    
    David
    

    There was an RF pilot done with Ardis in Chicagoland about 12 to 18
    months ago.  Just wondering if the individuals involved in organizing
    this pilot were aware of the previous one.  (It was done with MCS)
    
    Charlie

	Well, at 2400baud, things should move along swimmingly on our net.

	:)

								mike

Mark,I thought Brian Moe (here in CXO) did a pilot like this
sometime 2 years ago?? I don't remember if it involved laptops
or just those superfancy pager. Have you been working with him?
 liesl

    Several people in this company have already performed "proof of concept" 
    trials with RF packet data.  All that is to be known about 
    client-agent-agent-server is already known.  Parameters around
    performance (throughput & latency) are known.  Pros/Cons of Mobitex vs.
    Ardis are known.  Costs (and recommendations) for traffic volume and
    capital costs for RF-modems and Infotacs are known.  Suitability of 
    full-function lap-top vs. hand-held "brick" or 2-way pager has had some 
    study.  
    
    There is little or no need to repeat any of this.
    
    I think that .0 is putting the accent on something new which is testing 
    if the future MCS technical strategy (i.e. Microsoft-centric) is
    feasible in a mobile data environment.
    
    Now that could be a lot of fun and perhaps has heaps of as yet
    unrealised business potential but I wouldn't want to see Digital MCS
    putting money into MS Exchange (LAN MAnager, IP et al) to run over RF 
    networks unless both Motorola and Microsoft were putting up at least 
    five times as much money *EACH*.
    
    These guys have deep pockets.  Let's negotiate.
    
    /Chris.

I think Chris (in .-1) has stated it pretty well.  The focus here is on the
interconnect to Exchange and whether or not that technology has any business
value.  As for investments, there are no plans for us to pour a bucket on $$$
into this and the suggestion that Microsoft do so is a great one.

re: a couple of earlier ones

there have indeed been other mobile pilots in the past and to my understanding
there have been reasonably successful.  Again, the intent of THIS pilot is to
gain better understanding of the use of Exchange in this environment. 

-mark

	Exchange at 2400baud? Ugh..

							mike
					Working in a group integrating 
					voicemail into Exchange

Let me try to clarify a few things as I think I've probably caused excessive
confusion.  There are really two different purposes for this pilot and I've
managed to run them both together.

First of all, there HAVE been very successful pilots of wireless technology in
the past sponsored MCS by Steve Eddleston.  Steve is closely tied into this
effort and is in fact the sponsor of the most visible part of it, namely the
usage of Exchange by mobile white collar workers for tying into their mail
systems as they don't always have access to a phone jack.  This is NOT intended
to be a general purpose field service platform.  My mention of getting people
in the field involved was really intended to find people who are mobile and
have the need to access their mail systems.

The second purpose of the pilot is to investigate this technology for how it 
might apply to the Worldwide Onsite Workbench program which is focused on the
onsite, service engineer.  While there is the hope that this technology might
someday find its way into that program, we are NOT trying to pilot this
technology with those individuals at this time but rather will be following the
results of the "white collar" pilot as well as studying the technology in the
lab.

I hope this helps and doesn't add more confusion...

-mark

    
    Just to add more confusion ...
    
    MCS Europe have started a large scale project for using laptops &
    wireless comm.  I think they call it "Future Electronic Workplace".
    
    It's based on GSM , the commonly used cellular phone standard in
    Europe.
    The main purpose is to give the field access to the call handling system
    and TIMA when they are on-site ...
    
    IMHO I think (even if it's nice to have hi-tech tools :-) it's far to
    expensive to implement this with the available communication solutions.
    
    / H�kan Widman / Digital / Sweden
        

>    MCS Europe have started a large scale project for using laptops &
>    wireless comm.  I think they call it "Future Electronic Workplace".
    
FEW is an MCS worldwide program, and yes, this effort is tied out with it.

stay tuned...

-mark