Exactly! Peter M.
> The issue is that there are many many businesses that are big enough > that they need DIDs and shared lines but aren't nearly big enough for > digital technology. > > There is a gaping hole in phone services that stretches between about 5 > users and 75 users. They need the features that T1/PRIs offer but don't > need, and can't afford 23 channels. > > John > > On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 11:57 -0400, Henry Coleman [VoIP-PBX.ca] wrote: > > Hi, I have implemented Direct in Dial Trunks (DIDs) in Canada using a > > Mitel SX100 PBX in 1986 > > but I would not advise you to use this technology. It really doesn't > > offer any advantage over digital lines > > The first problem is that the three or four digits that get passed to > > the PBX must represent extension number directly or must be mapped to an > > extension range (a feature not always available). > > The second limitation is the number of simultanious calls > > All in all, the technology is better left to history. > > A digital trunk servicing each extension is far less expensive and > > offers much more flexability. > > I would see if you can port the existing number range to an ITSP (or get > > a consecutive group of digital lines) > > These trunks could then directly ring an extension and if unanswered > > could be diverted to a receptionist > > to take messages or go to Vmail. This is the basic functionality of > > analog DID and is a "piece of cake" to implement with Asterisk. > > > > Henry
