[asterisk-users] SIP hardware phones

[Olivier]

2012/2/10, Jason W. Parks <jason.w.parks at gmail.com>:
> I'm in a similar situation. However, most of my buildings were re-wired
> around 1994 to provide Cat5 or 5E to the desktop for data, and 2-pair
> Cat3 for voice, all in a star topology. I can move my voice
> infrastructure to an IP-based one running 10Mbps, utilize existing
> wiring infrastructure, with the only cost outlay being low cost PoE
> managed switches (48 ports for about a grand), and it ends up a lot
> cheaper than upgrading the data network to support the phones. ...and I
> can still stay within standard.
>
> Is this an option for you

Yes this is an option but the original question "why no low-end
Gigabit phones on the market ?".
Try to find a PC motherboard with 10/100 interface. Now, it's Gigabit
for all, no matter if people need its speed or not. And both, IP
phones and PC motherboard are 100$ products.

What strikes me is that it's still not the case in 2012, for IP phones.
I can live with that but I'm still a bit surprised by this remaining
year after year.


 or are you still living with the remnants of
> an old key system or something like that?
>
> "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a flat
> tire."
>
>
> On 2/8/2012 10:46 AM, Vieri wrote:
>> Let me answer that, Carlos. A big hospital.
>>
>> These big infrastructures can be quite outdated and messy. Getting
>> someone to cable old parts of the buildings can be very expensive.
>> However, replacing just the backbone switches is something they can
>> afford. And they don't need PoE, really.
>> What kind of applications benefit from gigabit speed? Well, plenty,
>> such as MDs having to view a whole bunch of x-ray images of several
>> patients, as fast as possible. Believe me, doctors aren't patient and
>> Gbps makes a big difference.
>>
>> So basically, that's your answer: these sites don't need PoE, just
>> Gbps and can't afford cabling a huge old building. Now, they don't
>> care for PoE on the hardphones either.
>>
>> So in these cases, I think it's clearly justifiable to have a
>> low-budget Digium D40 or Grandstream GXP280 with a 2-NIC Gbps switch.
>> Not a big deal anyway, because they can always add a mini 5 or 8-port
>> gigiabit switch for around 20$ between the wall socket and the
>> hardphone+PC, but that just adds another appliance to the doctor's
>> office...
>>
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 2/8/12, Carlos Alvarez /<carlos at televolve.com>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     From: Carlos Alvarez <carlos at televolve.com>
>>     Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP hardware phones
>>     To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion"
>>     <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
>>     Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 9:26 AM
>>
>>     If the customer is so cheap that they won't properly build out the
>>     network, why would they have gigabit switches to the desktop which
>>     have a limited set of applications that actually benefit from it?
>>
>>     Then there's PoE, which is expensive to start and very expensive
>>     with gigabit.  So this mythical customer is too cheap to cable,
>>     but will buy a gigabit switch of dubious value, will they buy a
>>     PoE gigabit switch?  If not, why not buy a value-priced PoE 100m
>>     switch which has a clear benefit instead of a low-end GB switch of
>>     dubious value?
>>
>>     I just don't see the fit, and I'm guessing the vendors don't
>>     either.  What is the exact network topology (brands/models) and
>>     applications that justify GB to the desktop, don't justify
>>     additional cabling, and how do you account for PoE in this
>>     environment?
>>
>>     On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Vieri <rentorbuy at yahoo.com
>>     </mc/compose?to=rentorbuy at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         --- On Wed, 2/8/12, Jason W. Parks <jason.w.parks at gmail.com
>>         </mc/compose?to=jason.w.parks at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         >  From everything I've researched to
>>         > date, my understanding is most
>>         > locations have chosen to double their port density and
>>         > continue to
>>         > service the phone and computer on separate ports than to
>>         > share a single
>>         > line for both computer and phone. Reason primarily mentioned
>>         > being
>>         > troubleshooting concerns. If this is the case, the second
>>         > port is not
>>         > required, and become nothing but another gimmick to sell to
>>         > you.
>>         >
>>         > Is this everyone else's experience as well?
>>
>>         Well, at some locations, for technical and mostly political
>>         reasons, doubling port density so that the computer connects
>>         to a separate port is too costly, way over what a 60$
>>         hardphone can cost (eg. Grandstream GXP285). I'd be glad to
>>         pay just "a tad more" for hundreds of "basic" hardphones, just
>>         as long as they can do gigabit.
>>
>>         Vieri
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
>>                 http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>     http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>