From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> To: William Murphy Subject: Re: LSJ/FTC Telecom/Data services summary Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:45:38 +0000 thanks On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM, William Murphy • wrote: The switch in question was purchased with an interface that we currently don't have at FTC. The phone switch essentially switches inside calls to the public switched telephone network and vice versa. The interface our switched has is for a TI which is similar in appearance to an Ethernet termination. FTC does not have T1 service from the telco. They have 6 telephone lines (smaller than Ethernet terminations). Install of this phone switch was dependent on the completion of a wiring project that never finished because of a dispute with the contractor and initiation of TI service to FTC that was deemed excessive service at a higher than desired monthly recurring charge. TI service will be roughly double our monthly cost at FTC. Also, we were hoping to link FTC and LSJ wirelessly with the Benner Hill project and had not determined this equipment would be required if we had a VolP solution on LSJ (we would provision FTC with several extensions). I'll revise it for readability. I am still waiting on some numbers. Will get it all together with benefits, costs and downside as soon as possible. Thanks, WM From: Jeffrey Epstein [mailto:jeevacationtegmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:28 PM To: William Murphy Subject: Re: LSJ/FTC Telecom/Data services summary there are few numbers attached to your proposal..s I would like to see this in a more readable format. benefits, cost , downside, . the useless switches that you describe . are as a result of what? On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM, William Murphy wrote: EFTA00742354