Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Riddle) (09/24/90)
AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded. They suggest that if someone else alleges to have a lower-cost plan, that you should get that in writing, but at the same time don't offer that their plan IS less. As a personal point, I believe that my AT&T ROA plan IS less than Sprint would be. Anyway, AT&T will gladly put in writing the whole summary of plan names and costs for you and will NOT compare it with anyone else. I prefer that approach as it offers a product on its merit and costs and leaves the comparison to the consumer. How often does a Honda dealer's claim sway your feelings about a Toyota anyway? Everyone in the echo is talking about AT&T and Sprint. Well, how about recognizing that the point of AT&T's ads MAY have been MCI who keep calling me at ridiculous hours and rant and rave about how much they're going to save me? MCI won't put ANYTHING in writing or even bother to advertise on TV any more; I conclude that that is because they don't want to get caught. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org
jpk@uunet.uu.net (Jon Krueger) (10/02/90)
From article <12521@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Jim.Riddle@f27.n285.z1. fidonet.org (Jim Riddle): > AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost > than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded. Correct. They have, however, made claims about quality. For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, most specifically including quantifying how much faster. They promised to do so. They have not done so. It would appear that this ox gets gored on both sides (it will not last the night). Jon Krueger, jpk@ingres.com
ho@csrd.uiuc.edu (Samuel W Ho) (10/02/90)
The only specific claim I have seen AT&T make is call completion "40% faster." For that, they did give, at least on the TV version, specific numbers in the fine print. I think AT&T averages a 3.5 second completion time, while MCI was about 6 seconds. In fact, MCI did sue them alleging deceptive advertising, but it was thrown out of court. The judge ruled that 40% is 40%, even if it is matter of less than 3 seconds. The ad ran something like this: AT&T calls complete 40% faster. (Numerous shots of person twiddling thumbs while holding phone.) That's like paying someone to do nothing. (Shot of paper airplane sailing into wastebasket. Fine print detailing statistics.) AT&T The Right Choice The funny thing is that at four seconds a call, full time doing nothing requires 7200 calls a day. These are only inter-lata calls, mind you. If these calls cost even 0.25 each, this is a monthly inter-lata long distance bill of $36,000. That is a good-sized telecom budget. Fact is, completion time is (within bounds) not that important. If somebody has to repeat something once because of noise, that wipes out a four-second difference. Noise lasts the whole call, too. It's a rough world out in ad-land. Sam Ho (ho@csrd.uiuc.edu)
ekrell@ulysses.att.com (10/03/90)
>For instance, they claim that they will put your call through faster than >other carriers. I have invited AT&T to put this claim in writing, >most specifically including quantifying how much faster. If I'm not mistaken, MCI and/or Sprint complained to the FCC about that claim in AT&T ads, and AT&T presented the FCC enough evidence to have them drop the charges and let the ads continue to run... Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com