I agree with Reza, as long as we inform the client on the possibilities then it's fine. For my clients I have a fail over to Cell phones (thru SNR) and where required I recommend DSL and Cable if their traffic requires more than 6 concurrent calls. < Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast> > Hey Andrew! > > Thanks for your feedback. This is important. > > We are talking about a couple of things here: Pricing, Availability, and > Redundancy. > > Folks are paying a premium when it comes to "Business" DSL, and the same > DSL is priced almost double for business. I've been assured by other DSL > providers, that they use their OWN equipment, vs. "reselling" Bell's DSL > services & have "confirmed" they are NOT using their Lucent Stingers. > > Additionally I've been told by a number of DSL providers that they do not > use Bell's DSLAM, but have their own DSLAMs ... however they do take > advantage of Bell's already present wiring (thanks to deregulation - but > definitely Bell's not happy!). > > Now... most of my clients are not concerned nor worried about PSTN fail > over. They just want VoIP for its benefits & advantages. Again... > speaking from my personal experience -- having converted to 100% VOIP for > the past 3 years with NO PSTN service available at home or office -- even > with a consumer grade DSL service I've been pretty satisfied (except for > when we moved to a new place -- different story different topic). In > other words in my personal experience, having 4 people on the phone at > exactly the same given time, no one experienced any degradation in quality > with consumer class DSL service. So I am satisfied. > > Based on personal experience, we've recommended clients with few lines, > about our similar setup. We deployed several VOIP systems & ALL are > running on DSL (business class). And yes, all clients are informed there > is no PSTN fail over & as per their own admission -- they are aware of the > DSL VOIP limitations (in case there is no internet). We've obtained > redundancy for less than half the cost of a Full Blown PRI/T1. Necessity > is the mother of invention :). > > If I ever have a client in the medical sector -- there is NO DOUBT -- I > will recommend them for a dedicated T1, or multiple T1's with PSTN fail > over and such. They have money. But MOST small and medium size business > do not want to invest behind PSTN fail over redundancy. Its expensive. > > On top of all this engineering, theoretical and possible screw ups (and > yes, we must be pragmatic as engineers and specialists) --- experience has > proved to me that ADSL and bonded DSL isn't a bad choice and is quite a > stable choice (assuming your internet DSL is stable), in serving our > existing clients who's requirements range from 2 - 15 simultaneous > incoming calls from the PSTN through their SIP trunking. > > So in my case -- when I can get beyond a 800K speed with a bonded DSL for > less than the price of a Symmetric DSL -- and speaking from experience > that it **works**, I can't justify the cost of a Symmetric DSL, where for > an extra 150 or 200 bux, you get yourself a full blown T1 (and yes, > depending on location) -- but then again to get FULL SDSL potential is > also dependent on location. > > Coming back to your statement "However I would *NEVER* suggest standard > grade DSL, bonded or not, for any business without a fallback (analog > lines, cell phone ringdown, etc.)." -- my question to you is "Why Not?", > as long as the client is well aware and educated of the limitations? > > Few other questions: > > 1. Are the non-Bell DSL providers who claim not to be on Bells DSLAMs, > and claim not to be reselling Bell's services are lying? > > 2. Other than the possibility of the DSL connection going down & > bandwidth limitations -- should I be aware of other limitations? > > 3. Since we have several clients on DSL/VoIP services -- as mentioned > clients receiving & making 2-15 simultaneous calls to and from the PSTN > (via their SIP trunks), should we be worried of a ticking time bomb here > with VoIP & DSL in terms of VOIP quality of service (except the fact that > DSL internet may be down) > > I agree T1 is THE BEST solution but not too many clients like the pricing. > Ok... if its a call centre client -- then its a **completely** > different story -- but then again we've seen call centres running > **exclusively** on SIP trunks. > > We both have unique requirements and unique experiences with our clients. > I'm eager & anxious to learn more from your experience & deployment! > > Cheers! > Reza. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Kohlsmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 7:05 PM > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Symetrical DSL or Cable > > >> On Wednesday 01 August 2007 4:23:59 pm Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast wrote: >>> From the business perspective, I wonder why one would go with an sDSL >>> for >>> the cost -- when one can achieve equal upload speed (perhaps more), but >>> GREATER download speed, when considering bonded DSL -- with fixed IP >>> address. >> >> Unless you're getting your own VPI/VCI, which immediately puts you in >> the >> price range of SDSL service, you have no better uptime than the consumer >> grade internet everyone is schlocking. Bell's authentication network >> went >> belly-up for damn near a full 24h a few months back. If your connection >> dropped during that time, you were SOL. Neither Bell nor any of its DSL >> resellers could authenticate you. Anytime you're dealing with DSL >> you're >> dealing with the broadband aggregators and all the nastiness that goes >> with >> them. Bonded or no, it's still no fun. >> >> direct links (lan extensions, SDSL, fibre, T1, etc.) and "private" DSL >> (private VPI/VCI) reduce the number of points of failure and get you a >> proportionate increase in stability, but of course there is a price tag >> associated with that. What I like about these solutions though is that >> you >> can get beyond the 800k, and you don't have to play silly bugger with >> bonding, although in terms of reliability bonding gives you additional >> redundancy. >> >> Isn't engineering fun? :-) >> >> Personally, I run my home phone line on scsinternet's nekkid DSL. It's >> stable >> enough for me (never had a failure that was Mark's fault in the last 3 >> years). However I would *NEVER* suggest standard grade DSL, bonded or >> not, >> for any business without a fallback (analog lines, cell phone ringdown, >> etc.). In fact I'm leery on doing that for any business without having >> a >> dedicated tarriffed link (T1) to a provider who's been around for a >> significant time. I don't even present the option when I quote. >> >> Even with redundant connections (i.e. a location with cable, DSL and >> wireless) >> I'm leery on it, and to be honest I don't recommend running their phone >> lines >> over their general internet connection anyway, so the cost for truly >> redundant VOIP without PSTN failover is too expensive for most. As my >> linkedin summary says... I'm not the cheapest, but I've been around >> enough to >> be able to avoid most of the common pitfalls. :-) >> >> -A. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>
-- Henry L. Coleman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
