<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Secret code word: ‘NTT does this without issue, do we need to switch providers?’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Robert Kulagowski<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 04, 2011 7:49 AM<br><b>To:</b> Cisco VOIP<br><b>Subject:</b> [cisco-voip] What do you do when a telco doesn't seem to know what they're talking about? "Voice" PRI being used for voice and videoconferencing.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>It may be the language barrier - I have an office that's moving in<br>Hong Kong (Wharf T&T is the provider), and we've been deploying our<br>Polycom video units with a cross-over PRI to the voice gateway at the<br>site, using the PRI to the telco as the path for video conferencing.<br>That's worked everywhere that we've deployed it (about 15 locations<br>now).<br><br>The provider says that the voice PRI can't be used for video.<br><br>We said,<br>"With our current ISDN PRI ‘voice only’ circuit, is it provisioned for<br>64Kbps Unrestricted Digital on each b-channel ?"<br><br>The Wharf T&T person says,<br><br>"<br>It is recommend to relocate yr existing IDAP (ISDN PRI) from yr old<br>office to the new office. It won’t interrupt yr voice service.<br>But, u cannot use this IDAP for VC as it does not support this kind of<br>function. Normally, it takes 14 days for the voice service relocation<br>and I have already checked this site is ready for the IDAP (ISDN PRI<br>).<br><br>U are recommended to use BRI or internet service for the Polycom 8400 model.<br><br>It is a normal method for the VC in Hong Kong.<br>"<br><br>We've explained to them that all we need is that the PRI be configured<br>on their side for 64Kbps unrestricted digital, but they're putting up<br>a fight about this.<br><br>What's the secret code word that I'm supposed to be using here for<br>describing the provisioning of the new PRI? If we deploy per our<br>standard, then the Polycom HDX system will ship with a PRI module, and<br>if the PRI to the telco really doesn't work for VC, we then need to<br>get a BRI module and order BRIs for that site, and that will take<br>time. (And we'll have a PRI module that we can't do anything with).<br><br>I can't get a straight answer as to whether the provider is saying<br>that it can't be used for voice and video for technical reason, or for<br>administrative/political reasons.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a> <br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a> <br><br><br><span style='color:white'>itevomcid</span> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>