[Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: IP Phones require massive rewiring of your network infrastructure -- throwing those phones with the built-in switches in the mix is just asking for trouble. -A. I agree - if you are have a hub based architecture. But not if you are using switches. And, sharing existing ports using a small 4-port switch (maybe 40 bucks or less) you don't even need much extra wiring. The packet traffic level from an IP phone is just not enough to be of any concern unless you are moving gigs of data simultaneously over the same shared port. Stephen R. Besch ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
Wolf Paul wrote: How about a school strapped for cash, with around 60 POTS phones on hand and an almost free source of another 60? Versus a cost (here in Austria) of $99 for the cheapest VoIP phone (the cheapest Grandstream model). Of course that also means that FXS is only of interest if I can get it for under around $50-60/port -- if things cost more it becomes easier to argue early replacement of these POTS phones by IP phones. For that many analog phones, you probably want something like a channel bank(s), which can handle the both FXS and FXO lines and package them into T1's. These are pricey new, but if you have the flexibility - and many school financial officers frown on buying used or surplus equipment - you can get them on e-bay quite reasonably with a little effort. I was able to get my FXS/FXO cards (4 port) for about $25.00 (US) per analog line and a virtually new TSU-600 for $99.00. Stephen R. Besch ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
Harry McGregor wrote: I would love to see a good cheap phone with 802.3af, but they have yet to come out. We have been looking at the Zip 4x4, as it's about the best of the lot. We tried to look at the UIP200, but it was not even readily available. The Polycom SoundPoint IP300 is around $130 and with the addition of their "splitter" cable can do 802.3af, but I don't know what the splitter costs. If it's $20, that's a pretty good phone for $150, remotely-powered. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 16:15, Reid A. Forrest wrote: > I may be wrong, but from what I've seen so far, an FXS port will run you > about $100/port anyway, plus the cost of the analog device. At this price, I > can't see any reason not to dump the analog and go with a cheap VOIP device. > Even the lowest end (i.e. Grandstream) will give you more functionality than > most analog phones at the same price. Now if you have a source for cheap or > free channel banks, that's another story. The cheapest VoIP phone won't get you PoE. I expect my phones to be powered when the AC power is out. The only way to do that is with PoE or FXS and channel banks, and good UPS in your closet. Putting a UPS on each user's Grandstream just is not effective. Anyone that does not include power calculations in the VoIP projects is not doing their homework. I would love to see a good cheap phone with 802.3af, but they have yet to come out. We have been looking at the Zip 4x4, as it's about the best of the lot. We tried to look at the UIP200, but it was not even readily available. I could go for a $100 granstream with PoE VS a $65 Grandstream without it. Harry > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Harry McGregor, Computing Manager Tucson Support Group - U.S. Geological Survey University of Arizona - Environment and Natural Resource Building 520-670-5574 (office) - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 520-661-7875 (Cell) - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The opinions/statements expressed herein are my own and should not be taken as a position, opinion, or endorsement of the University of Arizona or the U.S. Geological Survey. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
Reid A. Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> James H. Thompson >> >> Sipura 200 ATA is $40/port >> Linksys PAP2-NA is $25/port >> > > You're correct, I was looking at prices of _new_ channel banks > instead of these devices. At $25 or $40 per port it could make sense > to use FXS instead of VoIP. I haven't really followed the Linksys > products; is the PAP2-NA commercially available unlocked? I thought > they only sold these locked to Vonage. > LInksys has restricted sales of the unlocked versions to "Service Providers". Instructions and more info here: http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Linksys Jim James H. Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > James H. Thompson > > Sipura 200 ATA is $40/port > Linksys PAP2-NA is $25/port > You're correct, I was looking at prices of _new_ channel banks instead of these devices. At $25 or $40 per port it could make sense to use FXS instead of VoIP. I haven't really followed the Linksys products; is the PAP2-NA commercially available unlocked? I thought they only sold these locked to Vonage. As another poster suggested, channel banks can be had for cheap on eBay, but I generally don't consider used equipment on eBay a source most businesses would look to. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
Reid A. Forrest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I may be wrong, but from what I've seen so far, an FXS port will run > you about $100/port anyway, plus the cost of the analog device. At > this price, I can't see any reason not to dump the analog and go with > a cheap VOIP device. Even the lowest end (i.e. Grandstream) will give > you more functionality than most analog phones at the same price. Now > if you have a source for cheap or free channel banks, that's another > story. ___ Sipura 200 ATA is $40/port Linksys PAP2-NA is $25/port Jim James H. Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
On October 25, 2004 07:15 pm, Reid A. Forrest wrote: > I may be wrong, but from what I've seen so far, an FXS port will run you > about $100/port anyway, plus the cost of the analog device. At this price, > I can't see any reason not to dump the analog and go with a cheap VOIP > device. Even the lowest end (i.e. Grandstream) will give you more > functionality than most analog phones at the same price. Now if you have a > source for cheap or free channel banks, that's another story. You are clearly smoking something. Adit600 fully loaded (48 FXS) off ebay for US$500. That's about $11/port, plus the cost of any old phone. Hell throw in a pair of T100Ps and it's STILL $32/port. IP Phones require massive rewiring of your network infrastructure -- throwing those phones with the built-in switches in the mix is just asking for trouble. -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Wolf Paul > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS" > > How about a school strapped for cash, with around 60 POTS phones on > hand and an almost free source of another 60? Versus a cost (here in > Austria) of $99 for the cheapest VoIP phone (the cheapest Grandstream > model). Of course that also means that FXS is only of interest if > I can get it for under around $50-60/port -- if things cost more it > becomes easier to argue early replacement of these POTS > phones by IP phones. > > I may be wrong, but from what I've seen so far, an FXS port will run you about $100/port anyway, plus the cost of the analog device. At this price, I can't see any reason not to dump the analog and go with a cheap VOIP device. Even the lowest end (i.e. Grandstream) will give you more functionality than most analog phones at the same price. Now if you have a source for cheap or free channel banks, that's another story. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] Re: Benjk's Question "Why FXS"
How about a school strapped for cash, with around 60 POTS phones on hand and an almost free source of another 60? Versus a cost (here in Austria) of $99 for the cheapest VoIP phone (the cheapest Grandstream model). Of course that also means that FXS is only of interest if I can get it for under around $50-60/port -- if things cost more it becomes easier to argue early replacement of these POTS phones by IP phones. Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes, I don't really understand the obsession with FXS devices. The only uses I see for FXS are - connect a FAX machine, where FAX may not be the best application for VoIP anyway, - connect an existing cordless phone, where you probably have only one such device and a Grandstream HT286 will just do fine, - connect the analog phone in a hotel to a travel adapter, IAXy would seem to be the best choice here because you are so much more likely to encounter NAT traversal problems and other obstacles that you may not be able to resolve with a SIP device, - feed some Internet based phone services into a legacy PBX that wants to see them as CO lines, here again, depending on the number of feeds, HT286 may be cheap and cheerful enough. For anything else IP phones should be the default with no buts and no ifs. I am always puzzled by how people desperately hang on to legacy stuff they don't really need and in the process create a beast of a kludge technology. The x86 architecture (or lack thereof) should be an example that serves to show how not to design your stuff with legacy support as your all-overriding number one priority. So, let's not make the same mistake with VoIP. Let's get rid of analog phones as fast and forcefully as we possibly can. In other words, FXS should be the very very last resort when there is really no other way. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
