On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Henry Coleman <[email protected]>wrote:

> IMHO getting rid of PSTN lines completely might be a bad idea. When all
> else fails an analog phone line is still the most robust way of accessing
> the PSTN.
> Obviously you have your opinion as to the way to go, I myself have a small
> hosted system and also install small/medium sized Asterisk based systems.
> It's just "different strokes for different folks"
>
> Henry
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM, John Lange <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I never suggested Asterisk. All I'm saying is people should not be
>> deploying on-site PBXs unless they have a business case to do so and if you
>> do a true total cost ROI (taking all factors into account, not just
>> up-front equipment purchase), hosted is your best solution.
>>
>> I think you interpreted my comments as suggesting that the guy should
>> setup his own hosted Asterisk PBX for this client which is absolutely not
>> what I meant. He should buy service from an existing, established, proven
>> hosted PBX provider, not try and do it himself.
>>
>> The traditional business case for the PBXs is to share expensive limited
>> resources (lines) among many people using (comparatively) less expensive
>> on-site equipment. In other words, it's cheaper to install your own
>> equipment to share lines than it is to run copper pairs of wires to every
>> person who needs a phone.
>>
>> With VOIP the cost of that limited resource has been greatly diminished
>> and thus the business case for the on-site PBX also is greatly diminished.
>>
>> Note that I did not say "eliminated". The cost of the limited resource
>> (lines) is pushed up the chain to the hosted PBX provider who able to use
>> economies of scale to drive the "per-line" cost down by over-subscribing.
>>
>> As more users shift to products like Microsoft Lync & Skype, PSTN
>> requirements will continue to drop and (hopefully) one day the PSTN will
>> disappear.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> *Mr. Henry L. Coleman *
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
*Mr. Henry L. Coleman *
*
*

Reply via email to