A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-113.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 13.4 KB | 277 lines

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: [e-mail] (Jack Decker)
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?


In message <[e-mail]>, John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> wrote:

> [e-mail] (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   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 08:09:53 EST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal?


In TELECOM Digest V13 #106 [e-mail] (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: [e-mail] / 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
******************************