Author Topic: How can they make this claim?  (Read 4089 times)

Offline Come in Nighthawk

  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2010, 09:25:42 AM »

What's "POTS?"

As a lad growing up through several notorious hurricanes that swept over western CT in the '60s, I seem to recall that our phone would still "reach out and touch someone" even though we were wandering around the farmhouse with candles and hurricane lamps and flashlights...

Its why to this day I insist my Frau not discard the one hard-wire, non-cordless phone I have plugged into the wall.  :o And NOW, now that I have several working D1s with 4H dials...   :D


Offline HarrySmith

  • ***
  • Posts: 6527
  • 1937 302
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2010, 09:32:08 AM »
Plain Old Telephone Service ;D

I grew up in Ct also :) I remember "camping" in the dining room for a few weeks after an ice storm :)
The phone worked before the power came back on :D
Harry Smith
ATCA 4434

"There is no try,
there is only
do or do not"

Offline Come in Nighthawk

  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2010, 03:21:59 PM »
I was too young to "remember" the actual "occurrence" of Hurricanes Connie and Diane, but I do remember the "effect," which was the extensive flooding, but only because my Mama had to explain to me and my pea-brain why we couldn't visit her parents on their farm for several weeks.  We had to wait until at least one bridge over the Farmington River was repaired; a bridge close enough to where we then lived in Granby to be worth the time/effort to make the drive to it to then get to their farm.  So many bridges "near" us having been washed out or so severely damaged as to be unsafe, according to my Mama.

In fact, photo evidence shows the bridge on our direct route, down CT-177, was not lost, but the approaches to it, the south bank, had been washed away, rendering the bridge unusable.  I've also read subsequent "history" of the Aug. flood, suggesting that Unionville was "completely cut off from surface communication" during the flood.  Seems to me, that begs the question, "really?"  Even assuming the river flooded the "low ground" below Farmington HS (and so cut US-4 to the east -- toward Farmington center), and also that the bridge (US-4?) north-westbound up the river road toward Collinsville, was also damged or lost, why wasn't CT-177 north out of the center of Unionville past the old firehouse (going up the hill into Avon) not still available?  Inquiring minds want to know?  ;D

Then there was the follow-on Flood of October 16, which must have only hampered recovery ...and make it longer until I could see my grand parents...

I WAS old enough to remember "camping out" in the living room during Hurry-cane Donna, and as it was "hurry-cane" season, and so still fairly warm, so blankets were all we needed for warmth.  I can't recall if we had electric heat, but I seem to recall we had a gas stove, so we didn't "starve!"   Also, as it hit CT on a Monday -- September 12th -- no skewel!!!  :D

Now to re-focus this divergence on "classic phones," does anyone ave any data on how SNET-Co came through Hurricanes Connie and Diane, the "Floods of 1955," and/or Hurricane Donna, and how phone service held up?  The two floods of '55 must have taken down phone lines, not just bridges!??   ;D

Offline rp2813

  • **
  • Posts: 853
  • 10/50
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2010, 10:31:21 PM »
SNET (Southern New England Telephone) was also consumed by SBC about 10 years ago and is now a part of the "new at&t."

Some independent telcos provide(d) top-notch service, while others do/did not.  Around here, Roseville Telephone became more cutting edge than Pacific Bell.  I think they've changed their name, but wouldn't be surprised if their service is still a cut above what at&t offers in adjacent areas.

I supported systems that SBC adopted from SNET (because SBC didn't even have such systems in place -- see my reference to Southwestern Bell above -- and dealt with SNET people a lot.  They were all top-notch and dedicated.  I think that says something about SNET's quality of service, and I'll bet they had a very high customer satisfaction rate.  I suspect they did OK with maintaining and restoring service during and after major weather events.

At SBC, we were told early on after they were acquired not to call it "SNET."  It was "S-N-E-T" or "Southern New England."  Well, we all still called it SNET except when we were on conference calls.  You can't take the acronym out of a telco employee once they see one :-/
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 12:45:19 PM by rp2813 »

Offline Come in Nighthawk

  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2010, 10:49:25 PM »

It was either "Southern New England Telephone," in polite conversation, or "snetco" -- pronounced like "snot" only with a short "e" sound instead of an "ah" sound, and ending in "koh," or "coe," all as one word in "vulgar" (as in Latin Vulgar), or "vernacular" conversation.  SNETCo was not really a term of derision as I remember it either.  You might have the odd "disagreement" about service or billing, but on the whole, my parents and grandparents and near-relations never seemed to complain too much about them.   And if you knew my relations, if there WAS something wrong, they'd have been complaining!!!!  :D

But to be sure, I'll ask my brother.  He still lives in CT, and would know if their reputation was deserved or inflated.   ;D

Offline Keelan

  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2010, 12:46:05 AM »
But Ma Bell is dead. Cable, Voip, MagicJack and the like will NOT power a phone just because it's a vintage one.  Am I wrong on this?

'Ma Bell' may be dead, but they never had any kind of monopoly over the delivery of telephone service over a pair of copper wires.

Offline McHeath

  • **
  • Posts: 3349
Re: How can they make this claim?
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2010, 07:54:51 PM »
What I don't get is why they made Bell shut down because they had a monopoly going and it is the exact same with Verizon and mostly AT&T

The difference between then and now Kenny has to be with goofy sounding things like vertical and horizontal integration.  Simply put, in the old days The Bell System owned it all, wires, phones, factories making phones, service people, and you had to do business with them if you wanted to use a phone.  (unless you lived in an area with an independent telco)  Ma Bell even owned the wires in your house that carried the phone transmission.  Up to 1968 you could not even plug in your own phone to their wires, you had to rent their phone from them to use their system.

Today if you hate at&t you can pull the plug on them and go with someone else for your telephone needs. 

Here in my part of California we still have one government sanctioned and regulated monopoly with vertical and horizontal integration that we must use, the power company Pacific Gas and Electric.  PG&E is your sole choice for power here, you may not buy it from anyone else, and if you don't like that then you can buy a generator or solar panels and make your own.  Sadly, PG&E is not The Bell System, due to a combination of the political climate of California that regulates them and their corporate culture.  Their field service techs are top notch however, no complaints about them.