cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) (08/25/90)
US Sprint says that their rates are lower than AT&T, and that they provide better service. And what's more, you can get it in writing. I decided to do so. After viewing their commercial on CNN touting the above claims, I called the number they gave. They answered with "US Sprint, Sales Department." I explained to the gentleman that I had just seen their commercial saying that they had better rates, and that they would put it in writing, and that I would like to receive such information. He put me on hold, saying that he would get me a number that I could call to order the information. I have to give US Sprint one bit of credit here: the music they have while you're on hold isn't bad. In fact, it's rather nice, compared to some of the myoozak I've heard out there. Some nice light jazz. But I digress. He returned six minutes later and said that the number was forthcoming from a supervisor. I asked him if this was such an uncommon request, especially since the commercial's main selling point was the documentation of superior services. He said yes, that is was uncommon. I then asked if he expected people to just call and switch, faithful in truth in advertising, that somewhere, the lower rates were, indeed, in writing. He was surprised, but curteous in his asking if I would hold just a bit longer. Sure. Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance service. Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put me on hold. Immediately after getting my number, he said that the information was on it's way, if I could hold for just a moment more? Sure. All this to "get it in writing..." Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be refered to the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous request for my address. I gave it to him. So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, in 14 to 21 days. 14 to 21 days. "Thank you for calling US Sprint, we appreciate your business." Sure. ++Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us
Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.intel.com> (08/26/90)
In article <11330@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cambler@polyslo (Fubar) writes: | Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be | called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him | my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance | service. Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put | me on hold. Based on recent experiences of others here, I'd be calling 1-700-555-4141 every few days to make sure that my 1+ dialing didn't get switched over in the process. After all, you *did* call *them*. Maybe they consider that a request for a switch. :-) Just another phone user (with AT&T as my default and only carrier... we don't have 10xxx here), Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn
Darren Griffiths <dgriffiths@ebay.sun.com> (08/26/90)
In article <11330@accuvax.nwu.edu> cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) writes: >Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be referred to >the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was >surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it >in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous >request for my address. I gave it to him. >So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, >in 14 to 21 days. >14 to 21 days. One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software to distribute a "contract" along with bills. Evidently it is something a little unusual for Pacific Bell because the contract is supposed to be customized and different ones will go to people depending on what long distance service they currently have. This requires some customized software. It'll be interesting to see how well this works, Pacific Bell has had some problems with bill inserts in the past. They print a disclaimer on the back of the bills that lists the PUC address in case of complaints. They made the mistake of designing the bill so that the PUC address showed through the return window if someone put the bill in backwards. Many people did this and the bills dutiful where sent to the PUC causing all sorts of problems for Pacific Bell. The design of the bill has since been changed :-). Cheers, darren
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (08/26/90)
Darren Griffiths <dgriffiths@ebay.sun.com> writes: > One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going > to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell > does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software > to distribute a "contract" along with bills. Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and again no mention of Pacific Bell. Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
wally+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wallace Colyer) (08/27/90)
Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 25-Aug-90 Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Fubar@polyslo.CalPoly.ED (2366) > So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is, > in 14 to 21 days. Well it looks like you made an impression. I am a US-Sprint customer and called Customer Support this evening. After a couple minute wait for an available agent I explained what I wanted. The agent, who did not act surprised, asked for my phone number, put me on hold to lookup my account information, then explained that in 14 days I would receive the information. Then she attempted to sell me on an additional US-Sprint service. I guess that leaves them about ten days to figure out what they are going to say and get it aproved since it appears they were not prepared. Wallace
v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David M Archer) (08/29/90)
In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, they will bill you through your local phone company. When I had a new line installed, I requested Sprint as my long distance company. About a year and a few months later, when I actually got Sprint as my long distance company, I was calling long distance a bit more than I normally do. I was getting my bill directly from Sprint. Then after a few months, my long distance calling went back down to it's normal level of maybe 1 or 2 calls every couple months. I'm now getting my Sprint bill in with the regular phone bill. So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard. I'm sure that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and ask them. I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not terribly concerned, yet.
king@uunet.uu.net> (08/30/90)
In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) >writes: >>Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >>bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >>Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >>The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >>those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. >I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent >user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, >they will bill you through your local phone company. I called Sprint today to discontinue service. I'm moving and taking neither my local nor my long distance service with me. When the customer rep lady asked me if I'd been displeased with my service, I answered that it was fine except I preferred to be billed through my local telco rather than directly by Sprint. Her reply is that that was "being worked on" but that she couldn't say how long it would take. For the record, I generally make only one or two long distance phone calls per month. I've had Sprint for nearly a year and they've always billed me direct. The local telco is Illinois Bell. Steve King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king)
Darren Griffiths <dgriffiths@ebay.sun.com> (08/30/90)
In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 598, Message 8 of 12 >Darren Griffiths <dgriffiths@ebay.sun.com> writes: >> One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going >> to come through on their promise to put it in writing. Pacific Bell >> does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software >> to distribute a "contract" along with bills. >Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all >of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be >laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state >address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill >envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and >again no mention of Pacific Bell. >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. I don't subscribe to Sprint but I do know that my AT&T bills come along with my local phone bill and, if I've used any other long distance company, they are included in the same envelope. Basically each long distance company has a seperate sheet of paper with the logo printed on the top, however, I'm looking at them as we speak and all the papers are the same and the logo is printed on the page, presumable with the same printer that does the billing info. I send one check to Pacific Bell and it pays my local calls, my long distance (AT&T, Sprint, MCI etc) and my AT&T calling card. Perhaps you have a different type of service that Sprint prefers to bill direct or that Pacific Bell doesn't have the capability to bill for. The Pacific Bell billing software is still somewhat limited. The software that is currently being worked on is supposed to send two different letters to subscribers. I believe people who already have Sprint will get one letter saying that they now have a contract, and people that don't have Sprint will get another letter explaining that Sprint is going to "put it in writing". In addition the letters will be customized with the person's name etc. It's not a terribly difficult program to write, but I can see why Pacific Bell would want to make changes in the billing system slowly, which is natural when using IBM's and COBOL (ick.) Cheers, darren
"Jeff A. Duffel" <jad@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> (08/30/90)
In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all >of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be >laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state >address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill >envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and >again no mention of Pacific Bell. Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access') are billed through Pac*Bell. However, phone card and business customers are billed directly through Sprint. Since 800-877 is FGD, I don't see how they can tell the difference between the calls, whether they are EA or FON card. They billed a bunch of phreaks about two years ago for using the 'Sprint Backdoor' where phreaks would call 800-877 (and some other 800-xxx's) and simply hold down the pound sign and dial their number and they did this thru Pac*Bell from what I understand. This was when they were first installing the poundable hangup feature which was obviously buggy. >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up? Not everyone's case is exactly like yours. Jeff Duffel @ SAC-UNIX Sacramento, California Internet: jad@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!jad
Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net> (08/30/90)
If US Sprint is not your default carrier, you may still use them by
prefixing your called number with 10333, if your telco provides equal
access. Calls dialed this way generally get billed by your local
telco.
If you make US Sprint your default inter-lata carrier, they bill you
directly for calls placed from your pre-subscribed number(s) and from
your FON card.
Dave Levenson Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!davepeter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (08/31/90)
In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: > I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent > user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, > they will bill you through your local phone company. If you have a real Sprint account (FONCARD and the works) instead of an equal-access account Sprint bills you directly anyways. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (08/31/90)
"Jeff A. Duffel" <jad@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> writes: > Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most > residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy > Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access') > are billed through Pac*Bell. However, phone card and business customers > are billed directly through Sprint. I didn't "jump" on him, I was simply asking. There is a difference. I have examined my Sprint bill and have found the phrase "COMMERCIAL DIAL 1 SERVICE" at the top of each page. I had never noticed that before and certainly had never set the account up that way. First, it's a residence account, and second, it is a secondary "casual dial" account. Perhaps the "commercial" designation happened when they took it over from US Telecom. > >Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a > >bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US > >Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. > >The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are > >those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. > Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up? Not > everyone's case is exactly like yours. Every one of my friends has or has had a Sprint account. Every one of them was billed by Sprint. Many of my clients have Sprint accounts. All of them are billed by Sprint. Of at least twenty accounts, I know of no one who pays from their Pac*Bell bill. This is hardly a parochial observation and in light of that I think that my questions were valid. No one's comments on this forum (including mine, the Moderator's or anyone else's) are the revealed word of God. When someone makes a catagorical statement that differs from imperical evidence, questions with the attendant claifications are in order. I'm sorry if you took offense at my questions; apparently the original poster did not and answered them to my satisfaction. That, for your information, is what this whole exercise is all about. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Speak for yourself, John! Did I see my name taken in vain above? I rely exclusively on Rev. Bob Dobbs for my truth. If he says its true, then I print it here in the Digest. :) PAT]
drake@drake.almaden.ibm.com (09/05/90)
We got a call from a US Sprint salesperson about 3.5 weeks ago, asking us to switch (from MCI) to Sprint. We asked them to "put it in writing", and were told we'd get something in the mail. So far, nothing. Has ANYONE got it in writing? Anywhere? Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center Internet: drake@ibm.com BITNET: DRAKE at ALMADEN Usenet: ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake Phone: (408) 927-1861 [Moderator's Note: Sam, that was a television advertisement, not reality. They did not *really* expect anyone to ask for it in writing, let alone insist on it. In fairness to Sprint however, telcos do not like writing letters. Never have; never will. PAT]
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/06/90)
In article <11454@accuvax.nwu.edu> v116kznd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <11386@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) >writes: >>Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a >>bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US >>Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM. >>The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are >>those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account. >I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent >user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user, >they will bill you through your local phone company. I think that it very likely depends on the local telco. I have been a Sprint customer since 1982, and I have always been billed by Sprint, even during months when the bill said "$0.00", which in my case was not uncommon for a few years. Moreover, I haven't heard of anyone else up here being billed for their Sprint accounts through USWest (for about one year of my Sprint-customer-hood, my local telco was General Tel of Indiana; for two other years, it was GTE Northwest. Otherwise PNB/USWest.) Neither would I be surprised if it were just that the Sprint billing department handles different accounts different ways, for no compelling reason. That would be consistent with my experience with Sprint. >So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard. I'm sure >that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and >ask them. Obviously you've never called Sprint to ask them anything else. (Read the other recent postings on this subject, which are corroborated by my experience.) > I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector >myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not >terribly concerned, yet. Good luck. Long time Sprint customers will remember the class action suit that was required to get Sprint to stop billing us for busy signals and no-answers. (Before I hear from the I-love-Sprint / I-work-for-Sprint / Sprint-would-never-do-me-wrong crowd, just let me say that I stay with Sprint because I like the idea of being able to call across the continent and have it sound like I'm just across town. When AT&T can claim an all-digital network, maybe I'll switch back.) Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
v116kznd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (David M Archer) (09/08/90)
In article <11755@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs. washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes... >Obviously you've never called Sprint to ask them anything >else. (Read the other recent postings on this subject, which are >corroborated by my experience.) Actually, I've had to call Sprint twice so far. The first time, was when I finally bothered to find out why I was still getting billed by AT&T. I knew I was still connected to AT&T, but Sprint was who told NYTel to switch, so I figured I'd call Sprint. The Sprint person simply verified that I was "registered" as a "dial 1" Sprint customer, and said that I should check with the local phone company. I suppose that if I was a purist, I would complain that Sprint should have taken care of it for me, but in all fairness, it wasn't Sprint's problem. (I could complain about NYTel for a couple pages, but that's not the point here.) The second time was when I either lost a phone bill, or it was stolen from the mail, or what, I don't know. I called, asked "I never got my bill for <whatever month>, can you mail me a copy of it?". I was asked my account number, and that was that. A week or so later, I got a copy of it. (Well, actually screen dumps from a terminal somewhere, but close enough.) Both times I had no problem at all. As they say, your mileage may vary; apparently yours does.
cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) (09/11/90)
ibmarc!rufus!drake@drake.almaden.ibm.com recently informed us: >We got a call from a US Sprint salesperson about 3.5 weeks ago, asking >us to switch (from MCI) to Sprint. We asked them to "put it in >writing", and were told we'd get something in the mail. So far, >nothing. Has ANYONE got it in writing? Anywhere? I got the "in writing" information that I had requested. It consisted of mostly propoganda about the quality of their lines, the NAMES of all of their "plans" and SOME rates. Absolutely NO comparison, and NO INDICATION that their plans and rates are better. It would take the better part of a day, a good spreadsheet or statistical program, and all the rates of other systems to figure out which is best. In short, their "in writing" campaign is just so much smoke. Christopher(); --- cambler@polyslo.calpoly.edu --- chris@fubarsys.slo.ca.us
segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) (09/11/90)
cambler@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Fubar) writes: >I got the "in writing" information that I had requested. It consisted >of mostly propoganda about the quality of their lines, the NAMES of >all of their "plans" and SOME rates. Absolutely NO comparison, and NO >INDICATION that their plans and rates are better. It would take the >better part of a day, a good spreadsheet or statistical program, and >all the rates of other systems to figure out which is best. Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?" If so, how does their propaganda compare to Sprint's (or MCI's for that matter)? AT&T has been making a lot of noise about getting it "in writing" from thier competition, I'm surprised everyone seems to be taking them at face value. >In short, their "in writing" campaign is just so much smoke. I'd be inclined to believe that AT&T is the one that started blowing the smoke, and now Sprint is attempting to blow it back. Gary Segal ...!uunet!motcid!segal +1-708-632-2354 Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004 The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue the opinions of Motorola INC.
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/13/90)
Gary Segal <motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net> writes: > Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?" > If so, how does their propaganda compare to Sprint's (or MCI's for > that matter)? AT&T has been making a lot of noise about getting it > "in writing" from thier competition, I'm surprised everyone seems to > be taking them at face value. Point of order: AT&T didn't offer to "put it in writing"; Sprint did. AT&T's ads don't promise anything except that if you have AT&T, then you get AT&T service. It may be nebulous, but that's all they promise. AT&T says that you should ask "the other guys", who are promising big savings to put it in writing. What should AT&T put in writing? They are not promising anything, except to say that they ARE AT&T. True by definition. Sprint, on the other hand says, "And we will put it in writing." Apparently it is just a glib, empty response to AT&T's advertising. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (09/15/90)
In-Reply-To: message from motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net > Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?" I don't know if anyone has, but AT&T hasn't bought time on national TV networks to make the offer, either... Sprint has! > I'd be inclined to believe that AT&T is the one that started blowing > the smoke, and now Sprint is attempting to blow it back. I don't think so. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that both companies engage in a serious amount of mud-slinging, Sprint's TV spots made the flat and unambiguous claim that they would save you money over AT&T's rates. AT&T countered by advising people wishing to make the switch to get that promise in writing. Seems reasonable to me! If I claim to be able to do something, I'd expect to be called upon to prove it, sooner or later, and the first step in such proof would have to be getting me to spell out exactly what it is that I'm promising or claiming to be able to do ... in writing! If that sort of thing seems unnecessary or unreasonable to you, I've got a wonderful business proposition I'd love to discuss with you. :-) For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher. Admittedly, the cost difference was probably caused by my calling patterns from down here in the southeast corner of the country out to the west coast. BTW - Sprint's new ads say "We WILL put it in writing." So far, no one has mentioned being able to get them to do that little thing!
depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo) (09/16/90)
In article <12122@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >Sprint, on the other hand says, "And we will put it in writing." >Apparently it is just a glib, empty response to AT&T's advertising. More like a reponse to AT&T empty advertising. AT&T's audio quality is no where near US Sprint's. Their customer service isn't any better than Sprint's either. Back before the big breakup, I can see how there would be an advantage to AT&T service, since they were closely in touch with the local companies. But this isn't the case any more. Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly say that their fiber optic network is second to none. If you make long distance modem calls often, you can't beat US Sprint's quality. It's nice to have zero retries no matter where you're calling. Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
halle@homxb.att.com (Jeffrey C Halle) (09/17/90)
From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo): > Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at > work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly > say that their fiber optic network is second to none. If you make You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. (I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.) > Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 > depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) > University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff DePolo) (09/18/90)
In article <12255@accuvax.nwu.edu> halle@homxb.att.com (Jeffrey C Halle) writes: > From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu >(Jeff DePolo): >> Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at >> work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly >> say that their fiber optic network is second to none. If you make >You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all >noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from >the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference >between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home >is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. >(I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.) I strongly disagree. If I use my USS calling card from the office, noise is greatly reduced. Some of the other LD carriers heavily rely on satellites (MCI purchased Satellite Business Systems, owners of "Skyline"). These, I admit, are worse than AT&T. I remember having Skyline before they were bought by MCI and echoing was a problem. Also, at times, the connection was half duplex - you couldn't interrupt the person on the other end while they were talking. But still, anything other than fiber optic for a long haul will typically have a lower S/N ratio, in reality. Theoretically, if all of the microwave links/ hard wire/satellite equipment was up to spec, there shouldn't be much difference between fo and the old mediums. But this isn't the case. BTW, all of U of P is on its own campus-wide system known as Penntrex, and isn't maintained, wired, or supported by Bell of PA. A second BTW, I lived on campus for two years and never had local line noise problems when using USS. Basically the argument boils down to this: overall, all of the LD carriers still have to use Ma Bell local lines at the ends of the connection, so whoever has the highest quality _between_ regions wins the prize. Local telco noise is common to everyone, so it has nothing to do with the argument regarding which service has the cleanest audio. Jeff DePolo N3HBZ Twisted Pair: (215) 386-7199 depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia) University of Pennsylvania Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (09/20/90)
In article <12255@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halle@homxb.att.com (Jeffrey C Halle) writes: > From article <12191@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by depolo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu > (Jeff DePolo): > > Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at > > work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly > > say that their fiber optic network is second to none. > You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? Virtually all > noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from > the CO to the network interface at the building. The noise difference > between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home > is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. This is BALONEY! I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission quality. So if Sprint leases their fiber circuits from AT&T (?!), how come AT&T can't get as good transmission quality as Sprint? In article <12187@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) writes: > For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than > AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher. > Admittedly, the cost difference was probably caused by my calling > patterns from down here in the southeast corner of the country out to > the west coast. WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package against Sprint's regular rates? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP
zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil (Rich Zellich) (09/21/90)
Tad Cook writes: > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount > package against Sprint's regular rates? Well, the last two times I compared *regular* rates (because I don't do enough long-distance calling for the discount packages to be cost- effective for me), the Sprint rates were cheaper than AT&T's only for the first one (or three) minute(s), after which AT&T's were cheaper. And the difference on that first increment is only a couple of cents. Given my calling patterns - a few calls of multi-minute duration each - it generally works out that AT&T will be cheaper.
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/22/90)
On Sep 21 at 0:11, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > This is BALONEY! I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access > from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission > quality. In the Seattle area this may be true. Sprint was the first to provide any decent sounding transmission to the Pacific Northwest. I remember specifically using it to call friends that live in Tacoma. From here and perhaps other parts of the country, that is not true. While they are very close, AT&T has the quality nod. > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package > against Sprint's regular rates? Sorry, but my latest rate comparisons (I do this for a living) show AT&T to be somewhat cheaper for casual calling inter-LATA but intra-state. The most glaring example is a call from San Francisco to LA. Night rate: AT&T, $0.14 first minute, $0.11 each additional. Sprint, $0.14 each minute, no reduction for additional minutes. The cheapest intra-state rates for dialup are AT&T's 800 service which is half that of Sprint for the same setup. I don't mean to be argumentative, but those ARE the quotes. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (09/22/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tad@ssc.UUCP > In article <12187@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich > Sims) writes: >> For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than >> AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher. > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package > against Sprint's regular rates? I dunno ... ask Sprint "how it can be"! As I've already said, the rates compared were Sprint's best rates (at least, the best ones they told me about) and AT&T's ROA plan. Are you trying to say that the comparison is only valid if Sprint's best rate is better than AT&T's worst rate? I can save you lots of money on all your daytime L/D calls myself, and no hassles with changing your current L/D carrier, either. Just start making the calls at night! Send me the $5 signup fee and 10% of your monthly savings, please. :-) I hereby extend my previously stated offer to discuss a "wonderful business opportunity" to you, also!
shuford@sirius.cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford) (10/03/90)
>> Having been using US Sprint ... > You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T? ... > ... The noise difference > between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home > is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences. So that no readers of this forum get a completely wrong impression, let me add 0.02 worth of information. It may once have been true that U.S. Sprint, or its predecessor companies, leased most of its long-distance circuits from AT&T or other carriers. But it is probably safe to suppose that Sprint's circuits, at least on high-traffic routes, are now its own. From 1985 to 1988, I worked for Siecor Corporation, a joint venture of Siemens A.G. and Corning Glass Works. A major part of Siecor's business is the manufacture of single-mode fiber-optic cable for long-haul telecommunication. I know that during that period U.S. Sprint bought quite a lot of such cable from Siecor. (Many "fiber-kilometers", as we say in the trade.) This cable, and probably cable from other suppliers, went into the ground across the United States and forms the backbone of the network that is touted in advertisements. RSS shuford@cs.utk.edu