[ Home ] [ Table of Contents ] [ About Lee Goeller ] [ Search ]

The PBX Scene: April, 1986

Some Recent Events

As somebody, probably an aging science fiction writer, once said, "The future ain't what it used to be." And, indeed, for those of us who long ago traded in science fiction for the much more fantastic world of telecommunications, it appears that it never was. The good old 701 step by step PBX stayed on the market for 50 years, out-performing Centrex CO and many newer, though less effective, PBXs such as the 770, 800A, 812, 101 ESS, etc. etc. And now that it's gone, we'll never see its like again. What brought all this on? The demise of the Horizon, after only a few years in the AT&T product line, and the departure from the American CO field before it even got there of the ITT System 12. Then, too, Net 1000 has faded away, AT&T and United Technologies have abandoned their Joint Tenant Service endeavor, the transfer of UT's two PBXs, the ex-Stromberg Carlson and the ex-Lexar, to Telex has gone through, and GTE has dropped its "Action Station" telephone-terminal. Parker Ladd has left InteCom and Ken Oshman has left Rolm-IBM. Is there no stability anywhere?

It seems not. Continuing with the trend of the times, GTE Sprint is planning to merge with United Telecom's long distance network, the result to be called US Sprint. Further, GTE Telenet and United Telecom's data network will also be included in the merge. Since none of these companies is, as yet, reported to be profitable, one cannot help but think of the punch-line to the old joke: "We'll make it up on volume!"

And just to top things off, AT&T announced it was running behind on its software schedule, and ISDN will be a little late next year.

Supersets for All

There are those who can thrive in almost any environment. Solid State Systems of Marietta, GA, maker of the "Womack," a relay PBX with one of the best software control packages going, has found a most interesting opportunity. Their new JR. EXEC digital PBX has no electronic telephone sets. But Mitel has: the Supersets 3 and 4. And SSS has developed an interface card for their JR. EXEC that lets it use Mitel's Supersets. The card, referred to as an "applications processor" by SSS people, pulls off the 32 Khz signaling channel and feeds the voice signal on into the JR. EXEC's line cards in the usual way. Then, the interface card packages the signaling information and sends it to the JR. EXEC's control via a data link.

Other PBX manufacturers, impressed by the development, are reported to be offering SSS the job of matching Mitel's sets to their PBXs, too. Mitel is not happy; they worry about how their sets will behave in an environment beyond Mitel control, and they are doing what they can to discourage SSS. The latter, of course, sees their interface as being directly analogous to their 1A2 interface which lets SSS PBXs use regular multi-button sets from any manufacturer, without KTUs. On the other hand, SSS is relatively vulnerable if Mitel chooses to take a page from the IBM book and change the Supersets so that they are no longer "plug compatible."

Automatic Operators

The cost of Centrex is generally justified by the opportunity to fire a number of switchboard attendants; swapping technology for people, in an era of rising salaries, has been one ploy that just can't seem to lose. But Centrex isn't the only way to reduce attendants and their salaries. Direct In Lines and Direct Department Calling (one CO trunk to one extension vs. a group of trunks to a group of extensions) have been available for some time, as has Direct Inward System Access (DISA). With DISA, the PBX answers the call and gives the calling user PBX dial tone. Then, the user can run around the system on his own, by dialing the appropriate extension or access code to reach telephone dictation, WATS lines, or even other people.

The rapid advances in computer-based voice processing in recent years (voice synthesizers, digital voice storage and retrieval, voice-print security systems, etc.) have not gone unnoticed by people in the PBX industry. And as a result, people out there are building robot operators to compete with Centrex. OPCOM, originally knows as a supplier of ARS-CDR systems for small PBXs, is one of the most interesting. Their machine can answer calls with a voice synthesizer, ask the user to dial the extension number (or 0 for a human attendant), then monitor the call to see if the called extension is busy or does not answer. If either of the latter, the robot talks to the caller, offering further alternatives including the ability to transfer to another extension or leave a message in an appropriate voice mail boxes. The system itself is called DIAL, for Direct Access Link, and it not only does its job, but it provides traffic management reports for the calls it handles.

One might wonder why PBX manufacturers did not build in such features years ago: after all, DISA is a fair start along such lines. There is a parallel here with Call Detail Recording. In 1975, few manufacturers would believe that CDR was useful, much less necessary, and stand-alone units that bridged lines and trunks sprang up. Later, a more reasonable solution developed when PBXs formatted call records and output them to an external unit via an RS-232 port. But by then, the connected devices were little "applications processors" that took in the individual call records and produced extension bills, departmental summaries, summaries by WATS band, etc. A good compromise between centralized and distributed control.

Voice mail boxes, which are a part of the DIAL system, again developed as stand-alone systems. And between the patent situation and the lack of time or money at PBX companies to reinvent the wheel, voice messaging, whether stand alone or "integrated" into the PBX in various ways, has met with considerable success. OPCOM's DIAL system seems to go one step beyond --but one wonders what really should be in a separate machine, what should be in the PBX, and where the optimum interface should be. Do we really need extra devices inserted in incoming trunks? Does this limit us to 2-wire analog trunks in the world of digital access? What happens when D channels are available between CO and PBX? Do they stop off at the robot operator, or what? If DTMF signaling continues to be used, is talk-off protection really good enough to permit leaving a DTMF detector connected to the line at all times? Are six-digit security codes good enough to prevent hackers from having a field day?

One thing that is evident is that PBX manufacturers will do little to incorporate such features. They simply cannot afford to innovate in a competitive world; over and over, when I ask why some useful feature (such as traffic recording, CDR on intra-switch calls, testing of trunks to other systems, etc.) is not available, my PBX contacts have first asked, with some indignation, "who does that?" Then, they explain that they cannot afford to do it. Then, they say nobody wants it anyway. One reason why the Rockwell-Wescom 580 never got off the ground was the steadfast refusal to add CDR, and when it was finally added, just months before the machine was discontinued, it was done the wrong way.

But unwillingness to innovate leaves niches open. And companies like OPCOM spring up to fill the niche. Some succeed, and some don't. But OPCOM's robot operators, capable of handling automated message centers, seem to have gotten off to a good start.

What's In This Mailing

This mailing includes three new systems and one update. We now have the large Telex 1200/5000, formerly the UTX 1200/5000 and before that, the Stromberg Carlson DBX, and the smaller ITT System 3100 and the Toshiba Perception. All three of these systems have some interesting points in their architectures, and all handle both voice and data. The update is InteCom which has expanded to a larger version, is now shipping some versions of its LANmark packet net, and has upgraded its electronic telephone sets.

[ Top ] [ Next ] [ Table of Contents ]