ILEC == SBC (which absorbed PacBell) a.k.a. Texas Bell
CLEC == AT&T
Chapter 11 CLEC's include ATG (inaccurate-billing is a feature), others?
I was quoted:
ISDN-PRI from SBC 660 $/month or so.
ISDN-PRI from AT&T 300 $/month or so with no installation for a 1 year+ commitment
ISDN-PRI eliminates the garbage fees, or caps them at the equivalent of a small (much less than 12) lines.
T1 from SBC is discouraged by higher cost, extra garbage fees, and no CPID.
ISDN-BRI should be an economic winner, but is discouraged by a Byzantine ordering process -- it does not seem possible to order in finite time a small set (say 4-6) of ISDN-BRI's as a set of bi-directional DID lines.
ADSL on a POTS line from SBC must be de-aggregated from the rest of the lines into a business. Local volume discounts on the POTS service do not apply, unless one engages a long distance carrier to handle intra-LATA calls
With my wife's business, long-distance and toll-free outbound, and toll-free inbound calls are most of the volume. Local calls are a small fraction of the volume. Because of this, ISDN-PRI from AT&T looks like a winner if AT&T is also the long distance carrier (which it is).
I wish that there were a way to take a T1 (on which the ISDN-PRI is carried), split half for say 11B+ 1D channels, and use the rest (768K BPS) for internet access. I would be happy to buy the required Cisco router. Until that is possible, small businesses will continue to deploy POTS lines (some with CPID and hunt groups), and use one analog line for ADSL. Even better would be to dynamically allocate channels, giving voice highest priority, as is done by Fortune 500 oil companies that lease satellite bandwidth to link international sites for voice and data.
Paul H. Gusciora San Rafael, CA
It frightens me that the acronyms start to make sense sometimes...
----- Original Message ---
From: "Dave Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "KXT Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KX-T: Re: KX-TD T1 Integration
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:51:29 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lesher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "KXT Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: KX-T: Re: KX-TD T1 Integration
[snip]
|
| Not the case at all.
|
| When you call from {say} Inside the Beltway to The Valley, the
| money gets split. Of that {say} 10c/min, See&Pee err now Verizontal
| gets 3c, Specific Hell gets 3c, and the IXC gets all that is rest.
|
| If you have "bypass" on your end, See&Pee gets 0c/min.That doesn't explain why a T1 vs. POTS would affect LD rate. The local rate is charged by the local carrier anytime a trunk is in use. LD charges are on top of that when the LD carrier is used.
By "bypass", do you mean a T1 directly to the LD carrier? If that's the case (where the LEC simply provides an unchannelized T1 between the IXC and the cust), then there are no local usage charges for LD calls.
I think I see what you're getting at now. With POTS, the CLEC pays splits the per minute charge with the ILEC from whom they are renting the dialtone. With T1, the connection is directly to the CLEC's switch, so the ILEC won't skim any usage charges. I still don't see how this makes a difference specifically with LD charges--but it should reduce the cost of all calls as a whole--which is what makes T1 cost effective in the first place.
_________________________________________________________________ KX-T Mailing list --- http://kxthelp.com/ Subscription changes: http://kxthelp.com/mailman/listinfo/kxt
