TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:31:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 113 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Jack Decker) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon) AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 02:23:09 EST From: jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? In message , John Higdon wrote: > jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: >> Why not use both carriers? I would suggest you do this: Switch your >> line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls. > As previously stated, I would suggest the opposite. Keep AT&T as your > PIC. That way you have much easier access to AT&T's vastly superior > operator services. I really hate it when I pick up a phone, dial an > operator assisted call and have one of the "brand X" operators answer. > MY guests never have to deal with that. John, my phone is here for MY convenience, not that of my guests. As a matter of fact, if anyone tries to use my phone to make an operator assisted call, they are going to HAVE to dial a ten-triple-X code first, because I have no default PIC (and I specifically asked for the line to be set up that way!). Maybe you have guests that you feel are so important that they cannot be inconvenienced by having to dial five extra digits in order to use their calling card. Personally, I don't see it as a big imposition, and anyone who makes operator assisted calls with any regularity these days had better know how to reach the carrier of their choice! >> If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via >> MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain! > Good luck. MCI droids are worthless. You will never reach a resolution > on the first try. You will be lucky to even ever speak to anyone who > even knows what you are talking about. You should see the hell we go > through ANYtime we have to deal with even the slightest technical > matter with MCI. I will agree with you that the other carriers fall down a lot on communicating with the customer, but as I've mentioned previously, most of us don't have the same demanding telecommunications requirements that John Higdon does! :-) And, all of my recent contacts with MCI have resulted in reaching someone who was quite helpful and fairly knowledgeable. They may not be perfect but I think they are a lot better now than they were a few years ago. >> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their >> quality is better. > If your definition of quality is "does the call (eventually) go > through and can I hear the person at the other end?", then I would > agree that such an advertising statement is probably meaningless. But > AT&T is still the only company where you can actually speak to a > knowledgeable technician on the first call and speak to a rep who > actually knows about the service in question and can give you real > answers. I just hope the other carriers are listening to this, because you are making some valid points here. >> If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to >> complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that >> AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the >> local telco. Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you >> would probably have been just as satisfied with the result. > Not necessarily true. MCI and Sprint outages are legion and legendary. > Sprint is constantly suffering from local outages here in the Bay Area > and MCI's answer to a complaint about calls not going through is for > the caller to dial '10288' before the number. Sure is a good thing > AT&T is there when you REALLY need to call. AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall!" I still contend that many of the problems that are attributed to the carriers actually occur in the facilities of the local telcos. I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior connections, it is only because they are still using some of the pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?). When all the carriers are on a level playing field, I suspect you will not see a great difference between at least the top two carriers. >> AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ... > Yes, they annoy me as well. But since I do not use media advertising > as a basis upon which to select a carrier (pro or con), AT&T's > commercials do not send me into a tailspin, ignoring reality and the > facts. And the fact is that AT&T remains the most responsive, > comprehensive, and consistently the highest quality IEC in the world. > Its operator services are not even in the same universe as the > pretenders. Yes, MCI, Sprint and a host of other carriers have some > specific services and plans that MAY (but not necessarily) be > incrementally cheaper than AT&T, but for most purposes involving FGD > long distance, the company's services are hard to beat. But, John, if it had not been for the competition, you know that AT&T would still be giving us the same level of service (at the same high prices) as we had in the 70's. I think the reason that the AT&T commercials bother me is because it still shows that in some ways they are not playing fairly ... they are using questionable claims to try and destroy the competition. If they only had, say, 30% of the market share this might be appropriate, but since they are a former monopoly and still the dominant carrier, their ads come off as mean-spirited. It's clear they want all the marbles and would do anything they could to put MCI and Sprint out of business. > MCI and Sprint are slowly (very slowly) getting better and better. But > the truth is that AT&T is also beginning to smell the coffee. Right > now Sprint is hawking its "digital network with the most modern > signaling", etc., etc. The thrust is that it was the leader in digital > telephony. What a laugh. Who do you supposed invented it? AT&T did > misread the importance of "digital quality", and lagged in giving > digital connections to customers. But when Sprint started making hay > with it, AT&T became fully digital in very short order (the network > WAS already in place, long before Sprint even thought about it). Well, if you want to go back into history, let us not forget that when AT&T owned the Bells, we could not even (legally) install our own extension telephones. I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony, but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network. If only they had invested as much in upgrading their billing system and in training customer service personnel, they might be at least the number two carrier today. > And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in > about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected > via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it > goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how > intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it. Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't available to other carriers? Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot? Have these superior connections been made available to other carriers? I think not. Again, once AT&T has to compete on a totally level playing field, I think a lot of these so-called advantages will disappear (when was Feature Group C supposed to be discontinued, anyway?). > Both MCI and Sprint have experienced major billing problems and then > demonstrated a serious lack of ability to handle them. Yes, I had a > billing problem with AT&T that turned out to be Pac*Bell's problem. > But AT&T did not attempt to ruin my credit and turn me over to a > collection agency as Sprint did. (Sprint ended up giving me a $50 > credit over and above all of the disputed amounts as a "good will" > gesture, but I really prefer having it done right to begin with.) Agreed, agreed, agreed! Especially with Sprint. Sprint really mystifies me. They come up with these wonderful calling plans and then shoot themselves in the foot by giving poor customer service. I have to wonder if any Sprint executives have ever called in AS A CUSTOMER to see what sort of treatment they would receive? I would rather be on Sprint's "The Most" plan than on MCI's "Friends & Family", but MCI's customer service people are FAR easier to deal with, in my experience (one caveat ... I gave up on Sprint about three years ago and have NOT tried them recently, and if you recall the article that I posted about a month ago describing how one of their bill collectors tried to dun me for a debt that wasn't even mine, you'll understand why I'm not inclined to try them again!). > I have no stock or interest in AT&T. But every time I have used MCI or > Sprint for whatever reason, some monster rears its head and a major > inadequacy is revealed. I think it's a problem with the whole telephone industry. By the way, John, do you have a personal AT&T rep? It might make a big difference. I will concede that if you spend a LOT of time talking to your carrier's customer service department, then how you are handled there is going to be very important to you. I just wish the other carriers would take these comments to heart. Even someone like I, who is pro-competition and maybe even slightly anti-AT&T, can get VERY frustrated when dealing with incompetent folks on the other end of the phone line. To that end, I'd like to offer the "seven deadly sins" that lose business for the other carriers. 1) Waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ... on hold, usually while listening to interminably boring music interspersed with commercials > 4) Giving out just plain WRONG information... > 5) The inability or unwillingness to give immediate credit... > 6) truble reports that are deposited in a "black hole."... > 7) inability of the folks ... to do anything meaningful... Very good! I could not have made my case any better. > In short, you'd think that folks in the business of communications would > learn how to communicate with customers. Apparently many of the OCC's > are having a big problem in that regard! And until they fix it, they are not in AT&T's league. AT&T may be arrogant, but it is the service that I buy. As long as a company has that to sell, count me in. When the other companies come around, I will give them due consideration. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 08:09:53 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? In TELECOM Digest V13 #106 cmwolf@mtu.edu (CHRISTOPHER WOLF) writes: [ text about extra charges on phone bills deleted - dwn ] > As an aside, I think their policies are horrible on this service. If > I don't spend $0.29 on a stamp and $0.20 for a check fees to pay this > $0.70 in charges, I get a late fees and possibly disconnection of my > service. This applied even if one only owes a few cents. I argued > with them about a $0.12 bill one time. Also, he agreed that it > shouldn't be $0.09, and asked that I call him back next month with > whatever late charges I get. > I few cents here, a few cents there, spread across a couple thousand > college student could really add up. You bet it does. I'm still going round and round with NYTel about overcharges in billing to one single exchange in the 516 area code. All looked well in November '92 but December saw a fallback to the old charging scheme. I had to get on the phone with NYTel again and complain. January '93s charges to this exchange are now back to where they should be. I suspect that there was a problem with the new ratetables (probably an exchange or exchanges being added, but I don't know for sure) and the old ones were reloaded. In each case, I get a correction on each succeeding month's bill which is usually $.10 to $.20US. PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it soon adds up to real money." Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase. He said it in the Senate, but he had earlier used the phrase when hosting one of the 'College of Complexes' programs we held on Saturday night. The CoC met weekly, and presented a different speaker every week, or sometimes a debate. Time was always allotted for the audience to question/challenge/cheer/boo/hiss the speakers, some of whom were crackpots. When I was involved, in the 1960-70's, Dirksen came to speak a couple times a year. The College charged fifty cents tuition, and that got you one cup of coffee or cola, or a beer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #113 ******************************