[Asterisk-Users] Re: Ethernet Channel Bank idea

[Michael Graves]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:23:51 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote:

>> FXS vs FXO, listen.
>> 
>> I really didn't mean to present that as a perspective, only a challenge to 
>> shoot down an inflated price model for FXS ports.
>> 
>> If you mention FXO, I must mention $100 will not buy you what I am talking 
>> about. I am talking FXS ONLY.
>> 
>> I am too, interested, in an Ethernet Channel Bank. 
>> 
>> I will not mention PAP2-NA's for 2 Line VOIP FXS ports at $56 standard
>> retail each, nor will I mention SIP which comes standard with Asterisk to
>> ship VOIP calls to, and which passes G.729 across a T-1 or DSL to a device
>> which you can buy, such as a 7905, 7940, 7960 and I definitely won't point
>> you to buy a 729 license from
>> http://store.yahoo.com/asteriskpbx/asteriskg729.html.
>> or 'borrow' one from elsewhere.
>> 
>> Besides, GSM compression is pretty close.
>> 
>> etc etc etc
>> 
>> Big Difference between FXS and FXO.
>> 
>> And yes, point made, rural fxo bonding could be more cost friendly with
>> that type of a device.. as could already established lines. No installs 
>> etc.
>> 
>> Let me know if you every come up with a $400 48 Port FXO device.
>> 
>> With that, if as an FXO device, and not looking at FXS, the $400 is 
>> interesting.. considering only 2 points
>> 	1) Call Answered is at Channel Bank level
>> 	2) Call Delivered is only via Ethernet.
>> 
>> PSTN  -> | PM | -> *
>> 
>> Otherwise for twice the cost, I can do 4 ports @ $800.. vs 2 ports at 
>> $400. Matching cost and supporting open source software. 
>> 
>> Otherwise this is a null and void topic. Same cost per T? 
>> 
>> Am I wrong here?
>
>Don't think there is such a thing as wrong; its all in perspective.
>Some folks need economical fxs's and some need fxo's (or a combo).
>Regardless of which is needed, interfacing "the box" to asterisk
>via ethernet (where feasible) has some interesting economics and
>operational benefits, particularily if dsp/codec/canceller is in
>the box.

I think that one real opportunity, perhaps of many potentials, is the
smaller installation. We suffer the lack of small format, reliable
FXOs. If the proposed hardware was DSP based, modular and supported up
to say 8 (?) FXOs in addition to however many FXS ports then I'd be
willing to pay 2x the cost of existing small FXO adapters like the
Sipura SPA-3000 on a per port basis.

Also, unlike the SPAs, we're targeting * installations. Therefore,
don't bother putting a whole lot of complex dialplan stuff into the
firmware. Just presume to act as appendages to the * server.

Support IAX2 over ether as your connection back to *. Make the cage in
a couple of sizes such that I can deploy a small one standalone at a
remote location.

If you wish to get fancy, put a SBC style PC into on a card that fits
into the cage. That way I can put my * server right in the box for SOHO
installations.

Michael 
--
Michael Graves                           mgraves at pixelpower.com
Sr. Product Specialist                          www.pixelpower.com
Pixel Power Inc.                                 mgraves at mstvp.com

o713-861-4005
o800-905-6412
c713-201-1262