I discovered and deployed a solution some would consider counter-intuitive. For whatever reason, I can get a dedicated long-distance T1 for about $400 MRC ($16 per line) while a "local" T1 costs over $1,200 MRC ($50 per line). My telco automatically assumed I would want/need the local T1 for my local traffic but when I did the math it was all backwards.
All inbound calls for a local T1 are free. However, most companies hook a toll-free number to ring through to their local number so many incoming calls cost the switched long-distance rate of 5 cents per minute. Outbound local calls are free too, but outbound long-distance calls were 5 cents per minute for switched long-distance. For the dedicated long-distance T1, all inbound and outbound calls cost 1.9 cents per minute, even if you are calling a toll-free number or the company next door. Instead of having local DIDs, we simply got a huge supply of toll-free numbers, all with unique DNIS so we use them as DIDs for not only direct voice numbers but also direct fax numbers. The short story is that 90% of our outbound calls were long-distance and 90% of our incoming calls were toll-free so paying $800 more MRC and 3.1 cents more per minute for a local T1 made no sense. The break-even point is going to be different for everyone depending on your total call volume and the relative difference between costs for each type of line. For us, the break-even occured at around 40% local calls. What I mean is that if 40 or more percent of our inbound and outbound calls were to local numbers, then getting local calls for free benefits us enough so that a local T1 saves us money. Do the math for your company. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Ciholas > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Provisioning CO lines > > > > Hi all, > > This is a NEWBIE question, so all you experienced types that are > tired of stupid questions can move on... > > I've pretty much given up trying to do my entire phone system > over IP (including local service), so I have to select and > provision my local CO lines. I need about 10-12 lines which can > be POTS lines, of course. But, I thought, why not get something > digital and expandable like a DS1, PRI, T1 or whatever they call > it with 23 or 24 channels of 64 kbps voice. It seems like it > would be simpler for me to deal with this (and better quality) > and it *should* be simpler for the phone company, too. > > However, while everyone can sell me POTS lines, when I ask about > getting these in some sort of digital muxed interface, I seem to > confuse the providers. In one case, I was able to get something > called "channelized T1" which cost a lot and did not actually > include the "phone" service for any of the channels, that was > additional. So the cost to go from POTS lines to something > digital was extreme, so much more than I can't understand why > anyone would have T1 voice interfaces, yet all the PBXes have > this and it seems commonly used. I must be doing this "wrong". > > Okay, so I need help with: > > 1. Understanding terminology so I can ask for the "right thing". > > 2. Advice on when it is reasonable to go POTS versus something > else and what that something else is. > > 3. Feedback on what others are doing with 10-12 lines in the US > that may want to expand to ~20 lines. > > 4. Interfacing so many POTS lines to Asterisk. I guess that > means an FXO channel bank to T1 card? Kind of stupid to go > digital/analog/digital in the last 100 feet. > > Help? > > -- > Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 voice > CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax > 2626 Kotter Ave, Unit D [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Evansville, IN 47715 http://www.ciholas.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
