eli@pws.bull.com (Steve Elias) (09/16/90)
Hi Rich et yall. Could you please detail for me [us] your 'calling patterns' So I can determine why you paid higher rates than ATT rates when you tried out Sprint??? Which rate schedules did you compare? (e.g. Sprint Plus vs. Reach Out or normal rates?) What exchanges were you calling from and to? What was the disconnect rate? When and how many calls? (You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?) Thanks. BTW, if any of you other telecom cats encounter this type o problem (or others) with Sprint, and it turns out to be a True Fact that Sprint is at stonewalling or at fault, I'll try to harangue the answer out of them! (This doesn't include complaints in certain Bay Area exchanges; does anyone have a list of the ownership and switch-type of different bay area exchanges; or Boston area exchanges for that matter? (Hello, jsol?) As for Mr. Higdon being "vindicated" ... by GTE switch local telcos? My guess is that John would rather vindicate the Bay Area *from* GTE switches. eli
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (09/19/90)
eli@pws.bull.com wrote: > (You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?) Nope, but I'll try and answer the questions anyway. > Could you please detail for me [us] your 'calling patterns' > So I can determine why you paid higher rates than ATT rates when you > tried out Sprint??? Which rate schedules did you compare? > (e.g. sprint plus vs. reach out or normal rates?) I thought I did that! I live in South Florida, just north of Miami, and the majority of my calls were to California, specifically the area around San Diego. Apparently the Sprint rates were distance-based, while the AT&T rates were strictly time based. The calls were also (as much as possible) made at the lowest (night) rates for both companies. The comparison I made was between AT&T's ROA plan and Sprint's regular plan. I don't think it was called Sprint Plus, but I'm not sure. This was a couple of years ago. > What exchanges were you calling from and to? Ouch! Don't have the bills any more. All outbound calls were from the 305-431 exchange. > What was the disconnect rate? When and how many calls? I didn't mention any "disconnects". The phrase I used was "failed connections". Sorry if that was ambiguous. I meant a failure to reach the number I was calling in the first place. At this point, I couldn't possibly supply numbers, dates, or times. There were several times I was unable to get the dialled number at all, although this was the least of the problems. The main problem was an excessively long time between placing the call and the connection being made (apparently), or "busy circuits". Since the vast majority of the calls were computer-originated, via modem, the computer would usually give up trying. Apparently, my computer has even less tolerance for bad telephone service than I do! :-) In all fairness, I have to admit that when I managed to place a call and get a connection, the line quality was usually good for the voice calls. I don't know if I could have "heard a pin drop", but I wasn't particularly listening for that sound. Data connections were no more than "so-so", but this may not have been a problem with Sprint's equipment/lines. For what it's worth, I also tried the same test sometime later, but using "casual caller" access to Sprint's service, following receipt of a fairly large volume of Sprint's propaganda. The results were even worse. It's entirely possible, I suppose, that Sprint has *now* gotten their act together and is the finest LD company in the world (but I doubt it). At this point, however, I'll stick with AT&T, simply because I've *never* had any problems with them, and it's not worth all the hassles just to try and save a small amount of money, which never happened in the first place. BTW - In comparison to many of the readers of this group, I'm extremely "unworldly" in matters telephonic. I just want to be able to have the silly thing do what I expect ... which it does with AT&T and did not with Sprint.
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/21/90)
In article <12208@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >(You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?) NO ONE expects the SPANISH INQUISITION !!!!! (Sorry, couldn't resist. Aren't there any other Monty Python fans out there?) >As for Mr. Higdon being "vindicated" ... by GTE switch local telcos? >My guess is that John would rather vindicate the Bay Area *from* GTE >switches. The point I was trying to make is that there *are* some places in 415 where the S/N gets pretty bad between the local CO and Sprint. I can imagine a variety of reasons for this, some of which would be the local telco's fault rather than Sprint's. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com