Thanx for all that background (not all of which I am quoting back). Interesting and informative. And I think I understand your points about VLans, but I am having trouble seeing the security benefit in this application. Would not packets to and from each telo be directed packets to a specific IP (telo <> router and router <> telo), and thus those packets would only appear on the two related ports?
Yes. the QoS feature for SURE, but I also like the that the switch will let me set the speed of the port. I am not going to assume that a cluster of these phones are are all going to play well together in the same sandbox, especially with their inherent QoS disabled (set to "0"). And I am not even going to assume that the switches' QoS facility will properly manage things, given that every port will have the same priority. So I think giving the telos a "sandbox within a sandbox", if you will, by setting each port to the minimum speed required to make a quality call may better assure that all players get equal access. Of course this is all blackboard stuff for the present. Port speed may or may not end up having value, but I like having it in case it is needed. I will report back to this forum as this plays out. ;>
The security aspect changes with whatever approach you eventually end up with for deployment. If the one-tier star network of each Telo having its own port and a single unshared wire from one centralized switch works out, then in terms of voice packets they will pretty much be managed point-to-point. But you wouldn't have any security to protect from any hacker activities since all devices (Telos) would be on the same LAN segment.
If, on the other hand, because of the 100 meter (328 feet) distance limitation you discover that the most efficient deployment approach will be to use a multi-tier approach, perhaps dropping switches into the closest four residences, then radiating out from this initial four residences to two or three of the next closest residences, ..., you get the idea, then the VLANs might become even more important.
Again, in terms of VLANs, there isn't a compelling case to use them in such a small network for the classic VLAN purpose, collisions, broadcasts and broadcast storms, grouping of devices with similar requirements, etc. You probably wouldn't pay extra for the VLAN functionality unless there was some other requirement which needed it.
But security is a general requirement. (If you haven't got the drift of it yet, although in my background I've directed all of IT, I'm also an Ol' security guy)! With the VLAN approach you would have the option to empower each family to manage/police their own domain (think -- why do they put parental controls into many boxes today). Its really up to you and your community whether security is one of your requirements.
In terms of port speed, you have some good ideas. However, since on the LAN you'll have a gigabit pipe with Telo sessions producing individual capacity demands of 100 kbps or less, my thoughts are that the relatively small demands from the Telos would perhaps experience less conflict (better response time) flowing into and rattleing around in a big pipe than into a bunch of smaller artificially constricted pipes. This is based on the premise that a single car entering into a busy multi-lane highway creates less turbulence than a single car entering into a busy single lane highway.
There's probably not a big difference between these two scenarios in terms of what the User experience will be. I agree with you that its a good thing to have the port speed control if you later discover that you need it.
A lot of these discussions are academic, however, if you discover that you need to deploy a multi-tier network because of distance limitations or if you discover that this network will soon-after-deployment become multi-functional and not limited to just voice traffic.