Page 1 of 5

Internet Connection for MLS?

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:56 am
by segbert
RussellHltn wrote:You may connect an administrative computer to the Internet *IF* you've installed Desktop 5.5 and only though an existing Church Network. (Typically a Church Network is installed if you've got a FHC in the building, or an Institute, or other church employee working there.)


Is this an official answer? Do you have supporting documentation for stating this? We have a family history center in our building, and we've been trying to get the clerk computer set up through the Church Network, but the facilities management folks are telling us we're not allowed. They are saying that only the family history center is allowed to be on the network. Thanks.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:11 pm
by james_francisco
They are telling you that because the addition of other computers to a out-of-building broadband connection needs to be approved. The approval has to come from Church headquarters. The policy letter on this is available at the Stake Tech. Specialist website.

BBlocker wrote:Is this an official answer? Do you have supporting documentation for stating this? We have a family history center in our building, and we've been trying to get the clerk computer set up through the Church Network, but the facilities management folks are telling us we're not allowed. They are saying that only the family history center is allowed to be on the network. Thanks.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:42 pm
by russellhltn
BBlocker wrote:Is this an official answer? Do you have supporting documentation for stating this?


The Instructions for Desktop 5.5 included a "Internet Use Policy" page. A email was sent to the STS from CHQ in the first few months of the year clarifying why it was included and outlined the new connection policy. Unfortunately that letter has not been posted in either the MLS download section or the STS website so it can be referenced. I'd suggest you call clerk support and ask for them to send an update so you can show that to proper people to get connected.

Local Unit Broadband Connectivity in Support of MLS

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:40 pm
by jeromer7
Apparently I am blessed with a friendly and helpful FM Group. When I asked about admin computer broadband access a few months ago, my FM Manager supplied the attached.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:26 pm
by russellhltn
Interesting. From the wording it sounds like you still need to get approval from someone to go ahead. The email I got from support on Feb 28, 2007 is somewhat ambiguous on that point. There is no indication that approval must be sought, but it does indicate what is and is not approved.

The requirements are Desktop 5.5 (or in the case of the Dell 740, an authorized alternative) and an existing Church Communication Network.

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:18 am
by hpaulsen
I went back and forth with our FM group many times on this issue. When I'd call the Clerk support line, they would say "no problem", but the Global Services Desk was surprised by this and has been firm in not allowing it. The following is the relevant excerpt from a knowledge-base article received from Global Services as a reply to this issue:

Family history centers, employment centers, seminaries, institutes, and family service agencies are authorized to have Internet access installed into the office of their building. However, the bishop's office, clerk's office and other offices in the ward or stake meetinghouse, are not authorized to install an Internet connection.

I have been promised that someone will look into the inconsistency between Clerk support and Global Services.

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:11 pm
by jeromer7
HPaulsen wrote: However, the bishop's office, clerk's office and other offices in the ward or stake meetinghouse, are not authorized to install an Internet connection.


This is absolutely correct. A cable/DSL connection for the stated locations is NOT authorized. However, based on the Oct 2006 letter I posted, you can use an existing CCN connection in the same building.

My problem is that the wireless range of the access point in the existing FHC is insufficient for a wireless card in any of the admin computers in our stake center to see it.

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:33 pm
by thedqs
Since this was off the original topic I decided to open a new thread on the topic.

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:30 pm
by hpaulsen
We have a CCN, but Global Services was still adamant that we were not allowed to connect through it - and the knowledge-base excerpt above was the reason they provided. Apparently they don't interpret the Oct 2006 letter the same way.

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:53 pm
by greenwoodkl
I am a second-level support agent at the Global Service Center, of which the Global Service Desk is the first-level support team. I brought this discrepancy to the attention of the appropriate individuals here. From my personal search in our KB, the quote given to you was at the top of the relevant article on requesting internet access and is outdated. Details on the allowed connections as per the October 2006 letter are several pages later in the article buried in details. Hopefully, an update will be made to make the change more readily visible to the GSD agents.

As always, patience is a virtue...

HPaulsen wrote:The Global Service Desk was surprised by this and has been firm in not allowing it. The following is the relevant excerpt from a knowledge-base article received from the Global Service Desk as a reply to this issue:

Family history centers, employment centers, seminaries, institutes, and family service agencies are authorized to have Internet access installed into the office of their building. However, the bishop's office, clerk's office and other offices in the ward or stake meetinghouse, are not authorized to install an Internet connection.

I have been promised that someone will look into the inconsistency between Clerk support and Global Services.


HPaulsen wrote:We have a CCN, but the Global Service Desk was still adamant that we were not allowed to connect through it - and the KnowledgeBase excerpt above was the reason they provided. Apparently they don't interpret the Oct 2006 letter the same way.