eli@chipcom.com (08/24/89)
eli@chipcom.com writes: >Group C bypasses a few switch steps, which was one of the reasons why >ATT calls used to get completed faster than Sprint's. Paul Flynn responds: I've never heard this one before. Feature Group C access (used by AT&T) and Feature Group D access (used by the others) are both trunk-side connections. Sprint pal says you are correct. My transcription of his original comments about these 'feature groups' was lacking. What difference between Feature Group C and Feature Group D allows AT&T to have a shorter call setup time than the other common carriers? US Sprint makes heavy use of access tandems, while we tend to connect directly to a local exchange carrier's end office, but that is a business decision on US Sprint's part, not something they are forced to do because of Feature Group D. Again, you are correct... Reasons for that business decision follow: Because of the fact that Sprint was building a new network, they started by getting access to hubs (tandems). This provides more access per unit $ and per unit setup work. Analogy: first drill a well in the middle of a town, and then go out to different neighborhoods and drill more wells. Sprint does build circuits with CO access as time progresses, but they started by accessing the tandems. Can your buddy at US Sprint explain to us what Feature Group C vs. Feature Group D has to do with call setup time? There's no difference with the circuit itself. Group D and Group C are basically the same thing. No non-ATT carrier can buy a feature group C. Sprint's original Group D circuits came out of tandems, but those were their first routes. As they fine tuned their network, their new routes terminated at COs instead of tandems. One reason that ATT often has quicker call setup time is that they have had more time to build their network, and they probably have far more CO-terminated routes than tandem-terminated routes, compared to the alternative carriers. On the subject of Sprint bashing..... Ben Ullrich at Sybase wrote: How are they not half-assed?? Unless you give good reasons for the ``bashing'' to stop, there will be no motivation to do so. And Ben -- unless you give good reasons for the "bashing" to occur, there is no motivation to "bash". in fact, it's just annoying to those of us interested in facts rather than bullshit. ``Claims'' by Sprint are no better than any ``bashing.'' Let's see some real answers. point out what is wrong with Sprint's "claims", Ben, instead of giving trite responses like "let's see real answers". my friend at Sprint is giving "real answers". why don't you give us "real questions or comments" ? -- Steve Elias -- eli@spdcc.com, eli@chipcom.com -- voice mail: 617 859 1389 -- work phone: 617 890 6844