Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: bmr@ihuxz.att.com (Bryan M Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: 700 Blocking?
Message-ID: <10444@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 3 Aug 90 18:46:13 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18
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 541, Message 7 of 10


>[Moderator's Note: Yes, indeed! A couple of the OCC's use 700 in the
>same way local telcos and AT&T use 900 service. There's a couple of
>party-line conferences on there; AT&T has an automated conference call
>system operating there (user personally can establish conference with
>up to a couple-dozen [more?] people with no need for operator
>intervention);... ...  PT]

Alliance Teleconferencing can accomodate up to 60 legs for a single
conference.  This is reached via 0+700, either through TSPS or OSPS,
so is somewhat different that 1+800 or 1+900.  Blocking still might be
important, as the costs per port on the teleconferencing bridge are
non-zero ($0.25/min/port + usual LD charges for each leg seems to ring
a bell, but I can't be sure).


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories