AT&T To Replace 17,000 Batteries

An anonymous reader writes "After four fires in two years — see earlier Slashdot discussions for background — AT&T is going against its own independent lab findings and declaring that the Avestor batteries powering its U-verse network aren't safe and need to be replaced. This is the network that SBC was building out prior to acquiring AT&T. Following the latest broadband equipment cabinet explosion in Wisconsin, the carrier says it will swap out 17,000 batteries deployed in several states across its network."

But... why?

[Amorymeltzer]

Maybe I just don't know, but why on Earth do these things explode? It seems to happen with alarming frequency given the ubiquitous nature of these things - how hard is to make batteries or wires that don't catch fire when using them? Something like this has been happening a few times a year, and recalls or replacements aren't enough - punishments are in due order for making shoddy, dangerous products.

not a mention of the recycling details

[Locutus]

I wonder if anybody is watching to see what they do with all these batteries?

LoB

Re:But... why?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Because customers demand quick-charge batteries - it's a dicey proposition - you have to measure the current draw pretty carefully, or the battery temperature itself. Picture filling a bucket with a firehose without overflowing the bucket and you get the idea.

There's nothing good hearted about this

[ip_freely_2000]

Call me a cynic, but I'm sure they put a formula into a spreadsheet and discovered the liability issues outweighed the "do nothing" option. I'm sure there's a Ford Pinto kind of memo on a AT&T server somewhere.

Re:There's nothing good hearted about this

[petermgreen]

which works fine until one of the cases actually hits court and this behaviour is disconvered during the case.......

Re:But... why?

[LWATCDR]

Except these are batteries in network cabinets. They are not in end user equipment. I doubt that they are quick charge batteries.

Re:But... why?

[nacturation]

Why wouldn't they be? Quick charge means they constantly (or nearly constantly) have maximum capacity available - which is the ideal state for a backup system (because it makes system performance predictable and maximizes uptime in the event of power outage).

Think about what you're saying. These are backup batteries and will ideally never get used. What does it matter if your batteries charge in 30 minutes if they're only used two times a year? You could have batteries which take days to fully charge because at the time of an outage, what difference did it make that the batteries charged in 30 minutes and then sat there at full charge for half a year? Plus, quick charge batteries are likely more expensive, have shorter lifespans, and have worse performance.
 

Re:But... why?

[ScrappyLaptop]

Think about what you are saying. Think about your boss. Think about your boss making the decision of which batteries to purchase. Consider that he knows next to nothing about technology. Consider that he knows everyone under him knows *everything* about technology. Now tell me which ones he'll choose: The old-fashioned, slow ones or the faster ones labeled as 'advanced'? C'mon, everyone knows that when it comes to technology, faster is *always* better. The marketing folks (with whom your boss identifies more than with you) say so!

Re:But... why?

[nacturation]

What makes you think I didn't think about what I said?

It was the contents of your post that indicate you didn't think it through. Yes, you're correct that having a system always charged is the best state to be in. However, having batteries fully charged is independent of how fast they get charged. If the power is going out so frequently that the only way to fully charge the batteries between outages is by having a quick charge battery, then I'll agree with you.