Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! Message-ID: <12419@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 21 Sep 90 18:32:45 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 31 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 665, Message 7 of 9 On Sep 21 at 0:11, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > This is BALONEY! I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access > from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission > quality. In the Seattle area this may be true. Sprint was the first to provide any decent sounding transmission to the Pacific Northwest. I remember specifically using it to call friends that live in Tacoma. From here and perhaps other parts of the country, that is not true. While they are very close, AT&T has the quality nod. > WHAT? How can this be? Granted, the rate differences between toll > carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint? > Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package > against Sprint's regular rates? Sorry, but my latest rate comparisons (I do this for a living) show AT&T to be somewhat cheaper for casual calling inter-LATA but intra-state. The most glaring example is a call from San Francisco to LA. Night rate: AT&T, $0.14 first minute, $0.11 each additional. Sprint, $0.14 each minute, no reduction for additional minutes. The cheapest intra-state rates for dialup are AT&T's 800 service which is half that of Sprint for the same setup. I don't mean to be argumentative, but those ARE the quotes. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !