Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Utoto@crash.cts.com (Toto uucp)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Message-ID: <12440@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 90 04:14:30 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 17
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 667, Message 2 of 12


In article <12315@accuvax.nwu.edu> ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal)
writes:

>If both sides went over satellite, that would mean a half-second of
>extra delay from when one person stopped talking...

Would any reader care to confirm or deny the rumor I heard that in the
late 1970's AT&T used "satellite avoidance codes" for its inbound WATS
(now called "800 Service") customers receiving data calls?  As I
recall, certain 800-NNX codes were guaranteed a terrestial routing;
e.g., 800-223 (NYC Broadway 24) was an avoidance code, but its sister,
800-221, might catch a satellite hop on a transcontinental call.


Bill Cerny
bill@toto.info.com   |   attmail: !denwa!bill