First results from a good search for "project manager job description"
What you described here fits the typical definition of a project manager.
So they had one person, a "manager", keep an eye on people, keep an eye on projects, allocate resources, and basically manage the group
The difference between a project manager and a manager is that a manager has direct reports and is responsible for dealing with all of the human resource issues (hiring, firing, training, reviews, etc.)
In the situation that you described, who took care of those tasks? The boss? The manager?
We call those people Project Managers. Someone has to keep the timelines, project plans, meeting minutes, and other assorted paper work together. You do not want to waste the time of the people actually doing the work by forcing them to make sure that their co-workers are on task.
In the case of my organization, they are trying to transition to recurring revenue streams by offering technology solutions with predictable, monthly fees. They are hoping to balance out the cyclical and sporadic revenue cycles inherent in traditional consulting engagements. The organizational structure has not yet adjusted to address the realities of employing a skilled technical workforce.
...or would have moved to another job elsewhere that offered an equivalent to a promotion
This is what I see happening in the industry that I am. We compete with the larger consulting firms (KPMG, Deloitte, etc.) and more often than not, people are changing jobs every 2-4 years. For people who have been in the industry long enough, they often times end up going back to a firm that they might have worked at previously.
I do not really understand it because it is counter to my own career progression during which I have spent at least 5 years with each employer and received steady promotions and increased responsibilities. The only thing that I can figure is that those big firms are always hiring the "best and the brightest", overachieving, Type-A personalities. If a person is not getting promoted, they have to constant deal with an influx of new, eager to be overworked, dreamy eyed college grads who will do the same work, for less pay.
Or another way of looking at it is that managers should be so highly skilled that they can do the work of everyone on their team. Those managers should then train their people so that one day, those people can replace the manager.
I know it sounds ideal, but this is exactly what I am doing with my team in my organization. It is working so well that every time I have an open position, I have people on other teams scrambling to apply to the position.
There is a tangential corollary here. Often times employees are expected to do a job / handle the responsibilities of a position for a year or more before they officially given the title and pay that goes along with it. In that way, organizations protect themselves by trying out an employee in a position before promoting them.
While the above is okay, it potentially puts the employee in a disadvantageous position. Unless they are willing to negotiate or leave for another job, they run the risk of getting stuck doing work far above their pay grade without reaping any of the benefits.
I work in an organization that struggles with this. One of my guys is a very competent technical resource who deserves to be paid more than we are "allowed" to pay him based on his current title / position. Our company is a consulting company and the compensation model was designed to reward managers who are leading large teams of people on client engagements. The model is not flexible enough to reward people in technical positions who do not have direct reports.
In order to hack the system, we had to setup a bunch of dotted line reports for him on the organization chart. He does not technically "manage" them because he is not responsible for performance reviews and all of those other fun managerial tasks. But since he could technically delegate to them, they count towards his head count requirement.
The two main things that are limiting are that you can't take advantage of the unique strengths of the particular device you're running on
There was a reason I wanted specifics. This is a generic comment and it generally isn't particularly accurate anymore. Do you know of any specific things that would suffer on any specific platform?
performance always (and inevitably) suffers
So, at this point in time you have not given any kind of arguments that supports your position.
It's easy to parrot the "wisdom" of others, that's why I asked you to be specific. You weren't.
Well played sir
They are probably all selling access to the same set of DSLAMs at the CO.
The de-regulation of DSL was a mixed bag. On one hand, it produced competition and lowered prices. On the other, there was so much competition that companies were folding left and right. When I was doing SMB consulting in the mid-2000s we had one client who had to change providers four times in three years because they always went with the lowest priced provider and those providers kept folding.
Agreed. I was with Charter for about a decade and had good service. I always got more bandwidth than I was paying for and the service was stable. In ten years, I never had an outage.