alternative to voip gateways

Sun May 10 22:18:33 UTC 2020

>From someone that runs a DSL plant with CO-derived dial tone (and ATAs\gateways where appropriate), no VoIP is not cheaper and easier at the particular density we can infer from the OP. 

What's the "lot of equipment" that "simply does not need to be there"? I have a DSLAM line card that does DSL only or a DSLAM line card that does DSL and POTS. No extra equipment, unless you're counting board-level components. 

Manage voice configurations on 1700 modems\ATAs or voice configurations on 1/48th of that in line cards? 

Yes, there are filters required, but I don't see that being a burden. 

Any ILEC (in the US anyway) dropping analog voice is attempting to go through some regulatory loophole, not because it's a technically superior or more cost effective solution. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> 
To: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:54:01 AM 
Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways 

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett < nanog at ics-il.net > wrote: 

If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP? 

Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice. 

In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the technician only needs to go to the DSLAM to connect you. If you are also getting analog voice, he needs to go to the CO too because voice and DSLAM are no longer cohosted. 

Regards, 

Baldur 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200510/2ecf696a/attachment.html>