<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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.<br>
<br>
Is this an option for you or are you still living with the remnants
of an old key system or something like that?<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a flat tire."
</pre>
<br>
On 2/8/2012 10:46 AM, Vieri wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1328723181.89770.YahooMailClassic@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">Let me answer that,
Carlos. A big hospital.<br>
<br>
These big infrastructures can be quite outdated and messy.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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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...<br>
<br>
<br>
--- On <b>Wed, 2/8/12, Carlos Alvarez <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carlos@televolve.com"><carlos@televolve.com></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16,
255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>
From: Carlos Alvarez <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carlos@televolve.com"><carlos@televolve.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] SIP hardware phones<br>
To: "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial
Discussion" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:asterisk-users@lists.digium.com"><asterisk-users@lists.digium.com></a><br>
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 9:26 AM<br>
<br>
<div id="yiv1106216733">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?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?<br>
<br>
<div class="yiv1106216733gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 8,
2012 at 7:13 AM, Vieri <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:rentorbuy@yahoo.com"
target="_blank"
href="/mc/compose?to=rentorbuy@yahoo.com">rentorbuy@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1106216733gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="yiv1106216733im"><br>
--- On Wed, 2/8/12, Jason W. Parks <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:jason.w.parks@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
href="/mc/compose?to=jason.w.parks@gmail.com">jason.w.parks@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> From everything I've researched to<br>
> date, my understanding is most<br>
> locations have chosen to double their
port density and<br>
> continue to<br>
> service the phone and computer on
separate ports than to<br>
> share a single<br>
> line for both computer and phone. Reason
primarily mentioned<br>
> being<br>
> troubleshooting concerns. If this is the
case, the second<br>
> port is not<br>
> required, and become nothing but another
gimmick to sell to<br>
> you.<br>
><br>
> Is this everyone else's experience as
well?<br>
<br>
</div>
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.<br>
<div>
<div class="plainMail"><br>
Vieri</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.api-digital.com">http://www.api-digital.com</a> --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.asterisk.org/hello">http://www.asterisk.org/hello</a>
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>