<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I appreciate the reference, and if you have others, I'd like to know
about them. Speakeasy disappointed me because I'm a past customer and
I rate(d) them highly for support service. It seems that nobody wants
to just provide connectivity as a commodity.<br>
<br>
Charles Vance wrote:
<blockquote cite="midBAY115-W138A8D814D389D639AF864BB620@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>I see what you mean. I suppose the speakeasy/vitelity example
is not a good one since you lose control once the packets hit the
cloud. But there are other T1 providers such as bandwidth.com that also
offer Qos from start to finish and will give 5X9 reliability, and I am
sure that they don't prohibit asterisk.<br>
<br>
Speakeasy aggressively markets their hosted pbx and that is why they
don't want you using asterisk. They would much prefer that you sell
their phones and hosted pbx.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 128, 128); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<hr>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:12:34 -0400<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bill@cosi.com">bill@cosi.com</a><br>
<br>
QoS only serves its intended purpose if one controls all the hops
between a packet source and destination. If my ISP does not also also
provide the VoIP termination, my packets must traverse the net where
there is no QoS assurance. So mixing Speakeasy with, say, Vitelity as
you suggest is problematic. Thus my question: It might work very well
anyway, but isn't there a qualitative difference?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>