[Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
> > I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the > > majority of IP phones are sitting next to a PC and the additional > > expense has been incurred because "people want a phone that looks and > > works like a phone". That's certainly been my experience far > > outweighing any technical issues with quality or reliability of a > > PC-softphone. In every market I can think of with the possible > > exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a > > substantial number of times even though it does not "look like a phone" > > because it affords a much better way to resolve the conflict between > > ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more elaborate > > version could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I > > would submit that the ability to pick up a handset and place a call by > > saying "call Pat" alone would "sell" most potential customers on > > learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't > > have a conventional keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need > > to know that position A is used to hangup and dial by saying "dial > > 1-800-555-1212" (or whatever number you want called) and position b is > > used to talk. > > Soft phones are only as reliable as the host OS. It would be extremely > hard to explain to a user that they need to upgrade their PC or close apps > so their call quality can stay at the expected level. This is especially > true if you are wanting to do Speech Recognition. Which by the way, you > make that mistake many times in this post, you are wanting speech > recognition to determine what the person on the phone says, not text to > speech where the computer could read to the user. Speech recognition uses > significant resources to be accurate. In the long run you only shift cost > from your add on to the PC. Then you have to support whatever OS is on the > desktop, not a good idea. The reason for people wanting a real hardware > phone on the desk next to the PC is that they understand that computers > crash, have virus problems, have upgrade incompatibilities and any number > of other instabilities that can render their workstation down for a day or > more. These people must still be able to use the phone no matter the > condition of the machine on the desk. Many peoples jobs can still be > preformed when the PC is either non functional or not functioning > optimally. > > Take my mothers job for a option, she routes freight for her company. If > her computer was to become inoperable for a period of time, she usually > has a hour or more of paperwork she can complete on the phone with her > customers and freight companies. She could probably use a VoIP phone, but > not one tied to the stability of her computer. I'm sure this is true with > many other jobs. I can also tell you that my mothers windows computer > crashes several times a day, and some of the calls she makes requires her > to be on hold for 10-20 minutes. If she was to experience a crash in that > wait period, it would basically waste the time she had been on hold. > Sounds like we're arguing the same thing for different reasons. For whatever reason PC-softphones are not a viable option. I totally agree with that statement. > So try to remember that we wish to bring efficiencies to the > worker/person using our devices not new roadblocks. It probably doesn't look like it, but I tried to keep the initial comments low so I didn't go into detail on exactly how it would work but I am certain that the standard phone functions will all be at least as easy and as fast as any analog, digital or IP system I've seen so far and a dramatic improvement over most. > > > The heart of this concept is use of text-to-speech to replace keypad > > functions. I cannot emphasize enough how acutely aware I am of the HUGE > > resistance users will have to buying something without a keypad but bear > > with me and I hope you'll agree that this has enough "sex appeal" to > > overcome this historically undefeated resistance. Each "phone is two > > complete analog/IP circuits defined as: Talk - a subset of what Asterisk > > uses now not requiring any of the control functions TTSControl - moving > > control functions currently handled by DTMF over to a text-to-speech > > engine located on ACES component 3 described below. The TTS engine > > would be capable of translating most peoples voices when they speak the > > word "call" and the ten digits required to place a call. The > > "phones"(ACES component 2 described below) would simultaneously be > > user-specific so individual users could train their personal library to > > recognize them when they are "logged in" at that phone to place calls by > > saying "call Pat", etc. etc. etc. and of course to receive calls. > > Speech recognition would be less helpful than a computerized rollodex with > click to call functionality. A home user may have a short enough list of > p
[Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
ACES - Asterisk Communications Endpoint System
{the following could be used by any IP-PBX but the name pays homage to Mark Spencer
and friends who
cannot be lauded enough for their fine work}
As you read this it will be obvious I am not a professional engineer but I do have
enough knowledge
to be fairly certain what I'm proposing is feasible from not only an engineering, but
production
cost and perhaps most importantly, marketing standpoint.
An open phone is a great idea but as soon as you "get physical" you add a quantity
issue that
doesn't exist in software. Multiply this for keypads, handsets, bells, etc. etc. etc.
and you have
a lot of work but more importantly NO ONE has built a phone that can simultaneously be
brain-dead
simple to operate for one person yet offer the advanced user whatever functionality
they might
want. You will never solve that issue as long as you have a keypad of any kind.
So you end up with what started this open-phone thread in the first place... a
plethora of IP,
analog or digital phones with a dizzying array (or lack thereof) of bells and whistles
all trying
to achieve a balance between quality, ease of use and functionality which will sell
enough units to
make their manufacturing and distribution profitable. In this environment you will
always have at
the low end manufacturers competing on price and inevitably that results in quality
issues. Right
now it's Grandstream but next year it'll be someone else at a $30 price point and the
same issues
will apply all over again.
I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of IP
phones are
sitting next to a PC and the additional expense has been incurred because "people want
a phone that
looks and works like a phone". That's certainly been my experience far outweighing
any technical
issues with quality or reliability of a PC-softphone. In every market I can think of
with the
possible exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a
substantial number of
times even though it does not "look like a phone" because it affords a much better way
to resolve
the conflict between ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more
elaborate version
could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I would submit that the
ability to
pick up a handset and place a call by saying "call Pat" alone would "sell" most
potential customers
on learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't have a
conventional
keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need to know that position A is used
to hangup and
dial by saying "dial 1-800-555-1212" (or whatever number you want called) and position
b is used to
talk.
ACES has three components and for simplicity of description I won't go into VERY cool
extensions to
these components for conferencing and/or duplication of the typical 2,3 or 4 line
analog phone
features. It also assumes a LAN environment again only for simplicity of initial
description.
There's no reason that an ACES Call control server couldn't support multiple,
geographically
dispersed Asterisk servers.
The heart of this concept is use of text-to-speech to replace keypad functions. I
cannot emphasize
enough how acutely aware I am of the HUGE resistance users will have to buying
something without a
keypad but bear with me and I hope you'll agree that this has enough "sex appeal" to
overcome this
historically undefeated resistance. Each "phone is two complete analog/IP circuits
defined as:
Talk - a subset of what Asterisk uses now not requiring any of the control functions
TTSControl - moving control functions currently handled by DTMF over to a
text-to-speech engine
located on ACES component 3 described below. The TTS engine would be capable of
translating most
peoples voices when they speak the word "call" and the ten digits required to place a
call. The
"phones"(ACES component 2 described below) would simultaneously be user-specific so
individual
users could train their personal library to recognize them when they are "logged in"
at that phone
to place calls by saying "call Pat", etc. etc. etc. and of course to receive calls.
ACES Component 1
EM unit-Ear and Mouth piece, this is a headset or handset with a two position switch
and a 4
conductor jack that plugs into the IP unit(ACES component 2). FOr prototyping two
typical monaural
PC headsets into a 2.5mm switchbox would do fine. Switch position one connects the
1st mike and
earpiece to the 2 "talk" pins on the Talk/TTSControl port on the IP unit and Switch
position two
connects the 2nd mike and earpiece to the 2 "ttsControl" pins on the Talk/TTSControl
port on the IP
unit. Obviously production handsets/headsets would have only one earpiece/mike with
the switch
changing the connection from one pair of pins to the other.
ACES Component 2
IP unit - a black box containing 5 physical inte
[Asterisk-Users] Budget Hotel PBX
I'm considering using asterisk to replace an existing PBX in a 40 room hotel and
would appreciate any comments, corrections or insight before I begin.
Only 8 PSTN connections are initially required but since the guests need dial-up
internet access in the rooms it has to be Frac-T1 as opposed to using FXO ports on
a channel bank.
IP phones are not an option strictly because of price. The analog phones must
have FSK message waiting lights instead of the cheaper voltage type since asterisk
doesn't support that.
So, a TE410P {or 400} and two Zhone 24FXS channel banks will be used. I
couldn't google up any info on what mobo but I'd like to start with a 450mhz since I
have one laying around with 64bit slots but if that's marginal I could get a dual
Athlon server board or whatever.
I'd also greatly appreciate knowing if anyone out there is actually using asterisk in
a
similar hotel application today.
TIA
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Provisioning CO lines
I'm brand new to asterisk but not to T1s so here's my bit to contribute.
Each local telco {be they ILEC or CLEC} is different depending on their
CO switch and the software options they've purchased for it.
In Alaska, the "break-even" for switching from POTS to T1 is about 13
trunks.
Your telco will offer "regular T1" and/or ISDN-PRI. Up here the tariffed
rate on ISDN-PRI makes it as expensive as POTS lines. We lose
callerID if we go to regular T1 but that's because the local telco hasn't
spent the money to upgrade their switch.
Best thing to do is tell your sales rep you want quotes for 10-24 trunks in
PRI-ISDN, regular T1 and POTS. This can be like pulling teeth but it's
what you need to make the best buying decision. Then you can decide
when/if it's time to jump to digital and what kind to go for.
hth
> 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?
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] MWI question
Using a TE410P with Zhone 24FXS channel banks to power standard analog phones I can't seem to find out if it's possible to support FSK or voltage type message waiting lamps. I don't want to use stutter dial tone because of the dramatic difference in per phone cost. TIA ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
