john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (03/14/90)
Steve Elias <eli@pws.bull.com> writes: > I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume > levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. The differences are minor, but usually if there is a difference, it's in favor of AT&T. AT&T ought to know how to make their own technology work! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Chip Rosenthal <chip@chinacat.lonestar.org> (03/16/90)
In article <5136@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: >> I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume >> levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint... >I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up >and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. Not necessarily. I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back. In all tests (BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one. Sprint had the best signal levels. I doubt it's a quirk so much as different results for different conditions. Chip Rosenthal | Yes, you're a happy man and you're chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG | a lucky man, but are you a smart Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260 | man? -David Bromberg
rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (03/21/90)
In article <5228@accuvax.nwu.edu> Chip Rosenthal writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 2 of 10 >Not necessarily. I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three >LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back. In all tests >(BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one. >Sprint had the best signal levels. I doubt it's a quirk so much as >different results for different conditions. About three years ago, I was working on a project that required me to send numerous faxen to Italy. I thus had a strong interest in signal quality comparisons between AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. I found that for voice communications, AT&T had a slight edge over MCI, with Sprint a distant third. For fax transmission, though, Sprint was the winner by a mile, if you could get a circuit. MCI was a close second, and had enough of an advantage on circuit availability to make it the overall winner. AT&T was left in the dust -- I almost never had a retransmission on either Sprint or MCI, but AT&T botched the send due to line noise about 65% of the time! I wound up programming our fax machine to auto-dial 9-10222-011-39-6-etc. (Of course, the person who reviews the phone bills sent my manager a note saying, "...but AT&T is our official long-distance company." When I explained the situation, though, my manager said, "Don't sweat it; do what works." Maybe his common sense was why he was laid off... 1/2 :-) Linc Madison = rmadison@euler.berkeley.edu