Hi Chuck,I understand where you are coming from with this idea for standards in the vendor market but in practical terms it I don't think it could work in this form. If the owners of the Asterisk trade mark wish to set up a list of preferred dealers/vendors then small companies could decide to become Asterisk official dealers and network their resources. Asterisk would start to look like a proprietary product however.
Quoting Bruce Nik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hello Chuck, > > I am wondering if anyone has responded to your call for a mutual business > partnership group. I > know that Simon put forward the same request. Please let me know if you > are doing anything about it. I am sure that a circle of trust can be > formed to meet the demands. Some sort of regulation in pricing, and > implementations would just be amazing. Also, the team members can take > turns and volunteer to object or suggest real business cases brought > forth by members. I am not sure about sharing profits and making > another telecom company out of this but I do agree with all other > points you mentioned. It would be a great asset to TAUG to have some > connections to big telcos just like Simon said. If things do take off I > think several co-host locations can be formed aroung GTA to serve the > business needs of the group and to bring down the costs for customers. I > would very > much like to join such a group. > > Please let me know if there are other people still interested in the idea. > > Thanks, > BruceDate: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:50:42 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: [on-asterisk] Cisco 1700 > and Most expensive Asterisk Platform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is interesting it touches on a major point of > failure of Asterisk that I keep commenting on and maybe this is a major > opportunity > for those on the list. > > > > I wonder if anyone would be interested in having a group of Certified > Asterisk Implementers in the Toronto area (or something of that sort) > or as someone reacted to this idea before like an Asterisk Co-Op)? > > > > There are so many problems here Telecom companies are stable, > in the sense that if they implement a standard Nortel solution and go belly > up, > there will always be another vendor there to pick up the business. For > Asterisk, > there really is nothing there > > > > Unfortunately, as Im sure everyone knows, telecom > providers will get whatever they can for each implementation. Im looking > right now at helping a company that got suckered into a $100,000 hardware > investment and a 5 year contract worth about $500,000. This could easily > have > been done with $50,000 first year and much less each year after using > Asterisk. > So there lies the rub > > > > Asterisk is undefined. No marketing, no boundaries, nothings . > > > > Clearly (at least to me) what is needed, is an organization that > can put in certain standards for example: > > 1. Mandatory > Peer review of solutions by all participants. > > 2. Standardization > on parts (or at least solutions) so there is continuity > > 3. Standardization > of consulting rates, quotes, etc > > 4. Standardization > of service providers for T1s, VoIP trunks, etc might also get discounts > from providers. > > 5. Standardization > of recurring revenues (maintenance, price per minute calls) > > 6. Employment > Pooling A pool of commited people to work with to do implementations > (so it isnt lone gun solutions) > > 7. Tight > integration with enterprise solutions (Enterprise class CRM, Email Systems > (Outlook/Exchange), > Instant Messaging) > > 8. Implementation > Documentation Standards & Archives > > 9. Unified > Support System > > 10. Revenue > Share for all people involved in implementations, support, etc.. > > 11. Datacentre > Standardization / Pricing > > 12. Im > sure there are 10,000 other reasons > > > > What I am seeing is the deregulation of telecom, hardware > implementation costs dropping, per user license fees still entrenched > Asterisk has nothing but opportunity but no one is competing with bell on > $500,000 implementations. Right now, its all still just an ant on a > mountain and no offence, there isnt anything major nothing > happening to make that stop. > > > > You can see small, non-community attempts to do this kind of > stuff, with Trixbox, etc > > > > Maybe I have my head in the clouds and I know it would be a > major under taking Asterisk itself was anyone care to join me? > > > > Regards, > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > From: Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April-05-07 10:25 PM > To: TAUG > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Cisco 1700 and Most expensive Asterisk > Platform. > > > > > > > > > > Good > points Dave! > > > > > > > > > > > > So > in this particular case, who ever the carrier is -- is responsible for the > T1 > and Cisco upto the demarc. If that's flaky, then the entire thing is > flaky. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who > ever deployed the system and has given warranty for the products -- are > responsible for tech support & professional services. > > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming > this Cisco 1700 is provisioned by the T1 carrier -- it makes sense to put in > another router behind the Cisco - but if it were me, I'd choose some higher > end > router with QoS behind the Cisco - to provide priority over the VoIP packets > versus internet surfing and email. This was not the case in this > particular case. > > > > > > > > > > > > If > it were me, I'd provide all brand new equipment vs. refurb for the price tag > of > $25,000 :). > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > Reza. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: Dave Donovan > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, > 2007 7:47 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] > Cisco 1700 and Most expensive Asterisk Platform. > > > > > > > > > > I can't say specifically for > this case, but as for the Cisco box, I've seen this type of thing before. > Say, for instance, the carrier mandates that the edge (demarc) device be a > Cisco box of their choosing for management purposes. They can often ask > the client to pay for this. Client doesn't have access to manage it so > they put a Linksys box on it to take the single IP they're given by the > provider and NAT it. > > As for the price of the box, that seems a bit high. I guess you're really > looking at a $200 machine with, what, $1000 (retail) worth of cards in it, > and > 8 x $250 for high end phones. If the installer used Bell's roughly 100% > markup on hardware, you're looking at no more than $6000 for hardware. > > Depending on how complex the professional services were, how many changes > the > client made along the way etc, you'd have you decide whether the rest is > justified. Professional services can be a big chunk of these > projects. > > That's my take on it, for what it's worth. > > Dave > > > > On 4/5/07, Reza - Asterisk > Enthusiast < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Now > you are talking :). Yes, the $25,000 dollar question is why the * > box did not have a T1 card in the first place, if in fact the folks are > thinking to expand into greater work force. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: Peng Li > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, > 2007 6:24 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] > Cisco 1700 and Most expensive Asterisk Platform. > > > > > > > > > > > > it's an interesting one. why dont' they just use a T1 in the > * box? > > > > > > > > > > > > tks > > > > > > peng > > > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Mark Borg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Perhaps this was 'for future > capacity' and /or the needs changed mid-way > through the install... or this person is some wicked kind of sales > type... > it would have been interesting to hear the pitch to the client. > > On Thu April 5 2007 17:02:04 Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast wrote: > > Nope. Not at all... T1, > CSU/DSU, Cisco1700, Linksys, Refurb P3 w/512 > > MBRam, 8x SIP phones. > > > > Cheers! > > Reza. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peng Li > > To: Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast > > Cc: TAUG > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:48 PM > > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Cisco 1700 and Most expensive > Asterisk > > Platform. > > > > > > HI Reza, > > > > Do you mean that Cisco 1700 runs an Asterisk with a P3 chip > inside as a > > submodule? > > > > tks > > peng > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Can anyone advise me why one would want to use a > Cisco 1700 connected > > to a T1 -- in a fairly new implementation and billed the client $1500 for > > the 1700? And if you were the conslutant, why > would you want to connect > > a $50 Linksys router to the 1700 in the first place? > > > > I've been called in as an expert witness to give > my unbiased analysis, > > and I have my theories. However I also want to accompany my > opinion with > > other Asterisk & Cisco veterans here before I'm called to testify as > an > > independent/neutral party. > > > > Adds to the interesting twist I've seen one of the > MOST EXPENSIVE > > asterisk machines running on a P3 machine (never mind the configurations) > > -- which has 2, 4 port Digium Cards -- sold for $25,000+ fairly recently. > > Heck if I sold a P3 for that much, I'd make sure the client got customer > > service ABOVE AND BEYOND! > > > > Cheers! > > Reza. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Explore the seven wonders of the world > http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3webXS High Speed Cable or DSL Internet...surf at speeds up to 3.0 Mbps for as low as $24.95/mo...visit www.get3web.com for details
