<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>>I wonder if
BRI would have gotten traction if it offered PRI functionality
</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can't say for sure, and don't even know the
differences in functionality, but you may be right. When I last ordered
DID I couldn't justify PRI so brought it in as analog. At that point
in time and with that LEC PRI wasn't cost effective, even if I filled it
up. I could have filled a 24B but it would have left my entire facility at
the mercy of a single circuit, which isn't very smart.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To me the thing that did the most to insure the
demise of BRI in the US was the insane pricing. Most LECs saw it as a
large cash cow and priced it with large margins (keep in mind it is cheaper for
a CO to export two LDNs on a BRI than on two POTS, but most priced a BRI at
about 4x a POTS). Most LECs only offered it as measured service with stiff
per minute charges even on local calls. Many charged stiff rates for
connect time in data mode (in fact some would get around this by treating data
as voice). Their greed backfired, and of course when DSL offered more
bandwidth for considerably less money, the bottom fell out of the data
side. The only LEC I knew that didn't go down this path was QWEST.
They priced it flat rate at rates that were competitive with POTS and I leased
them for every site I managed. They offered higher quality and more
features than POTS.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wilton</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>