[cisco-voip] 2xBRI vs 4xFXO at remote site

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

thanks Mike, Your points help. 

I've got much more experience with the digital side, i.e. no experience with FXO, so I'm going to have to use that in my evaluation as well. 

if the cost is not to much greater, i'd like to lean towards the BRIs. we'll have to see. 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil) 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Norton" <mikenorton at pwsd76.ab.ca> 
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Cisco VoIP List" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:56:09 PM 
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] 2xBRI vs 4xFXO at remote site 




My remote sites are ultra-rural so POTS is my only option. Certainly, there have been moments where annoyances make me lust for digital connectivity. 



Honestly though, even if I did have the choice to use BRI, I doubt it would be cost-effective enough for my use. My regular calling is normally through PRIs at two main sites and the gateways at the remote sites are only used for 911, and SRST. The goal of my SRST deployments leans more towards the bare-minimum communications needed to keep the sites operating safely, not to provide seamless redundancy of regular calling. So really, POTS meets my needs adequately enough. 



There are a few benefits to POTS: (1) it’s difficult to screw up 911, (2) you can wire it to an “emergency jack” that onsite people can plug a $10 phone into during extended power outages (as I mentioned, ultra-rural), and (3) for small quantity of trunks, it’s cheap. 



The main annoyances are caller ID and disconnect supervision. For our usage, we simply do without the former, and the latter has only been a serious issue at one site where the telco was using an ancient FM multiplexer. 



-- 

Mike Norton 

I.T. Specialist 

Peace Wapiti School Division No. 76 

Helpdesk: 780-831-3080 

Direct: 780-831-3076 







From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi 
Sent: March-21-13 10:46 AM 
To: Cisco VoIP List 
Subject: [cisco-voip] 2xBRI vs 4xFXO at remote site 





Any thoughts on 2xBRI vs 4xFXO at a remote site? I'm road mapping our telephony infrastructure and would like to propose a scenario whereby we remove our PRI connectivity at the remote sites and have a few lines for emergency inbound/outbound calling. I like the simplicity of the digital PRI interfaces and I'm assuming the same would be of the BRI options. 

Experiences, good or bad, would be great to hear. 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130321/33807bf9/attachment.html>