Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: harrism@omhftre.raidernet.com (Mark Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Message-ID: <12538@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 23 Sep 90 00:38:05 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Omhftre BBS
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 674, Message 6 of 11


kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes:

> Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated
> than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if
> such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and
> W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit.

I recently took a course in telephony taught by a person with many
years experience working for Bell Canada, ATT, and BNR.  He stated
that, in general, overseas calls try to avoid using a satellite path
for both E-W and W-E directions.  The reason he gave was to avoid a
long delay between, say, a question and a response.


Mark Harris
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism
Domain: harrism@omhftre.raidernet.com