Comments on the Two Historical Reprints in Automation of Directory Assistance
Main Article Content
Keywords
Directory Assistance, Benchmarks, History of Australian telecommunications
Abstract
This paper is a comment on the background to the two historical papers reproduced in “Automation of Directory Assistance” in this issue. The experience of this author is that, despite a rapid decline in the service quality and mounting operating costs, Telecom was slow to act on automation of the Directory Assistance Service, did not fully exploit the advantages of the automated system, and provided a Directory Assistance Service that was clearly inferior to world’s best practice. Some benchmarking results are provided as evidence.
References
Baxter, I., & Lyon, H. (1982). The National Computerised Directory Assistance Service — DAS/C. Telecommunication Journal of Australia, 32(2), 96–100.
Campbell, I. (2017). Fact or Fraud?. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 5(2), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v5n2.107
Dougall, C. J. (1981). Trial of a Computer Directory Assistance System — Sydney. Telecommunication Journal of Australia, 31(1), 79–84.
Moorhead, S. (2015). Automation of Directory Assistance. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 13(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v13n3.1330
Campbell, I. (2017). Fact or Fraud?. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 5(2), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v5n2.107
Dougall, C. J. (1981). Trial of a Computer Directory Assistance System — Sydney. Telecommunication Journal of Australia, 31(1), 79–84.
Moorhead, S. (2015). Automation of Directory Assistance. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 13(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v13n3.1330
