[VoIP] DP-compatible ATAs

[Chad Perkins]

John already address a number of good points so I'll try not to duplicate ...

On 28 Dec 2006 at 16:08, Steph Kerman wrote:
> At some point I expect to have an on-premise *.  I own traditional D4
> channel banks with various card types I could connect to it.  Hell
> will probably freeze over before I will feel like paying $375 for a T1
> interface card.  Just not worth it to me. 

That's you.  How much are you willing to spend on your * system?  You've got to add 
in some costs for getting some FXO (and optionally FXS) ports.  I suppose you could 
go with a bunch of $6 winmodem clones and hope they don't freak out with your EM 
machine(s).
 
> I wonder how many others are eager to spend this kind of money.  If I
> understand correctly, a number of people who bought those "most
> economical candidates" wasted their money, ending up with non-working
> cards.  Please bring me up to date.  What does it cost to buy a new,
> warranteed one?

Though a little painful, it was a no brainer for me.  I don't keep current with pricing as 
I already have one of the old Digium T100Ps (works great).  You'll have to shop 
around.
 
> To my way of thinking, senderizing my XB and using it as the tandem
> for the SXS units is a better expenditure of energy with a more
> interesting result than doing it with an *.

And it's different approaches that make this whole thing interesting.  Neither way is 
right nor wrong, only unique.
 
> "Different strokes..."
> Steph
 
> Chad Perkins wrote:
> > Perhaps not too many. But the PCI/Asterisk and/or
> > PCI/Asterisk/Channel bank "models" not only gives the greatest
> > flexibility and features, it also provides a non-blocking
> > architecture for multiple DIDs; even when front ending a single EM
> > switch. Not having an on site Asterisk with analog ports (or channel
> > bank) is going to make having DIDs painfully awkward.
> >
> > For some, the Asterisk will/can also provide the tandem function
> > between the EM switches. From a historical perspective it may not be
> > desirable to reconfigure and/or rewire EM machines to interface with
> > one another. How many changes do I want to make to a historically
> > significant #3XB? My answer is as few as possible. So in my
> > preferred scenario Asterisk becomes an invisible part of the
> > "network". This value increased by the ease of which Asterisk can do
> > digit absorbtion and translation, once again relieving the need
> > rewire/configure machines.
> > Chad
> >
> > On 28 Dec 2006 at 10:10, Steph Kerman wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> I also wonder how many people will have trunks to so many switches
> >> and need independent trunks at that. Most SXS systems can have
> >> trunk outlets from a selector level of different exchanges
> >> multipled to the same OGT. I'm even sharing trunk equipment between
> >> my SXS and XB systems. So unless the traffic requires it, it's not
> >> obvious to me what is accomplished by having an independent pair of
> >> OGTs to the * box from each distinct exchange.
> >> Steph