TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?

Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?
31 Jul 2005 19:51:42 -0700

Steven Lichter wrote:

> As you said when TSPS systems came online things changed. I worked a
> lot of the TSPS conversons, the directors had to be modified and
> tested then we had to move 800 and payphone detection systems and
> convert them for TSPS. As the changes were made fewer and fewer
> offices Toll offices and a few remotes. ... I
> remember some of the operators coing into the CO to see what we were
> doing, they were either very young kids or older woman who had been
> operators for years, they were transfere to other offices and jobs, it
> was really said.

Both veteran operators and Brooks' "Telephone" said TSP/TSPS wasn't as
satisfying as cord switchboards. TSP did all the interesting stuff
automatically. From the company's and customer's viewpoint, it was
much more efficient. Occassionally, they still had to 'build up' a
call by relay the old fashioned way. One time I had trouble placing a
call and the operator did that for me, it was interesting to listen.
I wonder if they can (or would) do that today.

For some reason, my home exch was served by two types of operators. If
we just dialed zero, we got a older toll & assist cord board in one
location. But if we dialed 0+ or 1+ from a payphone, we went to a TSP
office in a different location. That TSP did not handle plain 0 calls
for some reason even though it was part of the design. (One other
quirk we had: local Info was 411, long distance was 1+ac+555-1212.
But distant Info within the area code (short range toll calls) was
explicitly stated to go through 0. Then they went to 555-1212 for
local Info (to discourage use). Now we're back to 411 for everything.
I don't know when they hit you with a charge.)

> The same came as we converted our offices to EAX. The good old days.

What's "EAX"?

> (c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Traditional Bell had a habit of always
using an 'X' to mean 'e(X)change', as in PBX (P)rivate (B)ranch e(X)change,
FX as in (F)oreign E(X)change, and PAX as (P)rivate (A)utomatic
e(X)change. An exception was FAX as in (FACS)imile Service. But you
asked about EAX which was (E)lectronic (A)utomatic e(X)change, or
another name for an electronic and automated switchboard. Of course
there is also CENTREX or a (C)entral Office e(X)change. The only
difference between a PBX and a PAX is the former involved an operator
at a manual cordboard in a company and the latter was the same thing
but an 'automated switchboard'. I am not well-versed enough to tell
you what small distinction there was between EAX, PAX and PBX but I
guess there was something. After all, Bell was always right about
everything, weren't they? PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: John McHarry: "Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?"
Go to Previous message: AES: "Re: itunes is a RIPOFF"
May be in reply to: "Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?"
Next in thread: John McHarry: "Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page