Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!telecom-request From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service Message-ID: Date: 30 Mar 91 17:12:24 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Lines: 36 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 256, Message 9 of 10 In article , jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: [ regarding entry-door controls for apartment buildings controlled from the central office... ] > Patrick intimates that this was (another) flawed decision by His > Wisdom. On the contrary, I agree that telephone companies should not > be involved in this type of service. There is no reason to involve > your telco in the unlocking of the front door to your apartment > And then there was the cost: >> [Moderator's Note: I must agree with you I think the sytem works much >> better as CPE than it did under the old arrangement, although the old >> arrangement was better for a small landlord who could not afford the >> initial cash outlay. IBT allowed the installation costs for Enterphone >> to be spread over twelve months if desired. PAT] If the landlord could get a mortgage on the building, he/she could certainly find financing for the CPE, and spread the initial investment over as many years as the bank would allow. I must agree with Jim, here, that this looks like an intra-premises problem, and is best solved with a CPE solution. I prefer to own my own room-to-room intercom, paging, and LAN devices, and buy the external networking from the utility. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857