Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site convex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!hosking
From: hosking@convex.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Long Distance Services - (nf)
Message-ID: <57100006@convex.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 18:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: convex.57100006
Posted: Mon Jul 16 18:31:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 01:56:38 EDT
References: <8608@gatech.UUCP>
Lines: 14
Nf-ID: #R:gatech:-860800:convex:57100006:000:748
Nf-From: convex!hosking    Jul 16 17:31:00 1984

#R:gatech:-860800:convex:57100006:000:748
convex!hosking    Jul 16 17:31:00 1984

Personal experience with MCI is that transmission quality tends to be
inferior to Bell's when calling certain parts of the country.  For
example, Texas to Mass. calls with MCI seem to be substantially
noisier than the same call with Bell.  This is an annoyance for normal
conversation, but could be a big problem for data transmissions, etc.
What it really boils down to is what sort of tradeoffs are you willing
to make in terms of price/signal quality ?  There's no such thing as a
free lunch.  If optimum signal quality is a big concern, you're going to
have to pay for it.  If the primary concern is money, you may have to be
willing to accept less than desirable signal quality sometimes - whether
you use MCI, Bell, or any other company.