Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: AT&T Ad is Correct Message-ID: <9354@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 26 Jun 90 19:41:43 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 28 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 458, Message 6 of 7 AT&T NEWS BRIEFS Tuesday, June 26, 1990 AD WIN -- The National Advertising Division ruled in favor of AT&T in the latest round of long distance ad wars. US Sprint challenged a print ad for AT&T's long-distance service that stated: "On average, MCI and US Sprint take over 50 percent longer than AT&T to set up a long-distance call." ... NAD said AT&T data supported the claim that MCI and Sprint can take nine seconds or more to set up a long-distance call [and] agreed that the seconds can add up to hours where business offices are involved. ... Advertising Age, p. 48. ------------------------------- So, of course I had to do a little testing on my own. Picking some busy-test numbers around the state and the nation, I timed the interval between the pressing of the last digit and the appearance of the busy signal. The results of many trials were quite consistent: AT&T completes in an average of 3-4 seconds while Sprint and MCI complete in an average of 6-8 seconds. I could detect no significant difference in the speed of call setup between MCI and Sprint. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !