lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (04/18/85)
I've found extreme variability among non-AT&T carriers when it comes to data call testing. Most of them can handle 300 bps, but starting at 1200 things start to get risky. Some routes work all the time with some carriers, some routes only 1 call out of 4 or 5, some routes not at all. Also, some brands of modems/carriers don't mix well at all (one example: Sprint and the D.C. Hayes Smartmodem). However, general issues of quality aside, there is one REALLY good reason to generally avoid the non-AT&T carriers for automated data traffic (like UUCP). As far as I know, only AT&T provides called party answering supervision on all calls. Some of the other carriers *may* provide it on calls to *some* cities--some don't support it at all. It is almost impossible to get these firms to admit what their status is on this point, since they don't really like to admit how their charging is done. But in general the non-AT&T carriers still operate on the "fixed timeout" basis for charging. That is, if a call is held for a fixed length of time (usually about 30 seconds) the charging starts. Period. This could cause massive problems with systems that use autodialers and have to timeout through busy signals, long call setup sequences, and similar problems. Very substantial amounts of billed (but never answered) calls could result. This applies both to completely separate networks and to WATS resellers. The alternate carriers CAN get called party supervision if they want it. In fact, they pretty much HAVE to get it when they go equal access in a city. Note though, that this means that the availability of the supervision info is based on where you are calling TO, NOT where you are calling from. Even worse, it appears that there has been no quick action on the part of the alternates to make USE of the supervision data (that is, to provide the means for passing the information back to a central billing point) even when it IS available in a destination city. So the information is being ignored by these carriers in most cases, even when it exists. Draw your own conclusions about what this means when it comes to using alternate carriers for automated modem calls.... --Lauren-- P.S. I wonder how the subscribers in equal access cities who get randomly assigned to non-AT&T carriers will react when they suddenly find that collect/third party/etc. calls no longer work as they expected. Or how about the first time they call operator to get credit for a wrong number (or a connection where they couldn't hear the other party, etc.) and are told that they have been switched to some other Joe Random service and the operator can't help them? The billing irregularities of the alternate carriers may also cause people a lot of nasty surprises. People are used to the concept that they don't get charged for a call unless it is answered. With the alternates, this just isn't usually true. I wonder if anybody is going to warn people that they've been switched to a carrier that just "guesses" about when to start billing? Fat chance. --LW--