I haven't tried all of them but.. at least Linksys ATA AdminGuide
doesn't specify such limitation
"FAX Enable T38
To enable the use of the ITU-T T.38 standard for faxing, select yes.
Otherwise, select no.
The default is yes"
Thomas Kenyon wrote:
Fernando Berretta wrote:
Tzafir,
I'm sorr
Fernando Berretta wrote:
> Tzafir,
>
> I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear.
>
> Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some
> modifications on app_fax so the questions are:
>
> 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card
> and this FXO po
Fernando Berretta wrote:
> Tzafir,
>
> I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear.
>
> Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some
> modifications on app_fax so the questions are:
>
> 1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO
> Card and this FXO port
Thanks for clarify.. so Asterisk will be able to receive faxes which
comes from a Gateway using t38 but will not be able to relay faxes which
comes from PSTN through a FXO card to other Gateway using t38
can this version of app_fax be used with Asterisk 1.4x ?
Steve Underwood wrote:
zoa wrot
Tzafir,
I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear.
Apparently Asterisk 1.6.0b2 and b4 has support for t38 because of some
modifications on app_fax so the questions are:
1 - If I use Asterisk 1.6.0b2 o b4 and a fax is received from a FXO Card
and this FXO port is forwarded to other ATA/Gateway is a
Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> Try reading the GPL and the FSF's interpretation of it. If things are
>> running in the same address space as my code, they need to be GPL
>> compatible, or I am likely to take action.
>>
>
> The GPL is not an EULA.
zoa wrote:
> T.38 will not work with the fxo card.
>
> Zoa
>
That statement is a bit vague. What has been put in add-ons so far is
only support for T.38 termination. Not T.38 gateway operation.
Steve
> Fernando Berretta wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has
T.38 will not work with the fxo card.
Zoa
Fernando Berretta wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax
> etc. and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's
> like ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP
> Dev
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:24PM -0300, Fernando Berretta wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc.
> and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like
> ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices
Dear All,
Are you telling me Asterisk 1.6.0b2/4 has support for t38 and rxfax etc.
and will be able to receive faxes and negotiate with voip CPE's like
ATA's to transmit faxes which comes from FXO cards to VoIP Devices using
T38 ? it is possible to compile this version of app_fax to work with
Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try reading the GPL and the FSF's interpretation of it. If things are
> running in the same address space as my code, they need to be GPL
> compatible, or I am likely to take action.
The GPL is not an EULA. You don't have to agree to it to use the
s
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:25:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
>
>> To my mind, this is a ridiculous situation and needlessly limiting. It
>> goes from the ridiculous IP extremes of companies such as Microsoft to
>> the other end of the scale.
>
> IP is the Internet Protoco
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 08:25:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >> I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk
> >> (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on
> >> SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> I'm also curious as to why you assert that using G.729 in Asterisk
>> (/not/ ABE) at the same time as a T.38 implementation that relies on
>> SpanDSP since these are two completely separate plugins that are
>> installed and acquired separately.
>>
>
> They are not ins
Rob Hillis wrote:
> T.38 is for all intents and purposes a codec. It's purpose is to
> re-encode a fax transmission as a data stream to be re-assembled at
> the other end as if it were a fax call. Seems to me to be pretty
> close to the definition of a codec to me.
T.38 is not a simple re-enco
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:35:35PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> Your original comment was that you cannot use T.38 and G.729 in Asterisk
> at the same time. On a technical level, this is /not/ true, especially
> if the T.38 implementation does not rely on SpanDSP. (whether or not
> such an implement
T.38 is for all intents and purposes a codec. It's purpose is to
re-encode a fax transmission as a data stream to be re-assembled at the
other end as if it were a fax call. Seems to me to be pretty close to
the definition of a codec to me.
Your original comment was that you cannot use T.38 and G
About the only reason for eliminating SpanDSP is compatibility with the
GPL license. Remember that /any/ feature added to the free version of
Asterisk is going to be added to ABE as well - ergo, the licensing of
any libraries required need to be compatible with a /non/-open source
license.
Thoma
Michelle Dupuis wrote:
> Wow, an answer phrased in the form of a flame...
>
> A more supportive tone might actually encourage the Asterisk userbase to
> grow!
>
Okay, if you really want a more constructive answer.
The addition to asterisk was an API change to allow app_fax from
asterisk-addons
08 8:22 AM
> To: Asterisk Users List
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards - T38
>
> Michelle Dupuis wrote:
> > Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm
> > curious how this will affect iaxmodem.
> >
> Why on earth would you want t
I think you are missing something.
Steve means that since its in add-ons its probably a GPL addition and
not compatible with the g729 licensing.
A t.38 gateway involves more than origination and termination, those 2
are pretty easy and do not involve any modems, the gatewaying is the
harder p
Steve Underwood wrote:
> T.38 is not a codec. A codec has one input and one output. T.38 is an
> interactive protocol. This, however, has nothing to do with what I said.
> If you use G.729 in the same asterisk as my spandsp library, you are
> breaking my licence conditions.
>
> Steve
>
I shoul
Michelle Dupuis wrote:
> Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm
> curious how this will affect iaxmodem.
>
Why on earth would you want to eliminiate spandsp? (which app_fax from
asterisk addons appears to use).
___
-- Ban
Steve Underwood wrote:
>>
> I thought * was still not capable for T.38 gateway operation. Doesn't
> beta 4 just added T.38 termination? And, I believe it misses out some
> key elements of doing that properly. Note that T.38 termination is an
> addon, so it can't be used with, say, G.729.
>> T
T.38 is not a codec. A codec has one input and one output. T.38 is an
interactive protocol. This, however, has nothing to do with what I said.
If you use G.729 in the same asterisk as my spandsp library, you are
breaking my licence conditions.
Steve
Rob Hillis wrote:
> T.38 is a codec in exac
Will the built-in T.38 support eliminate the need for spandsp? I'm curious
how this will affect iaxmodem.
MD
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Hillis
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:12 AM
To: Asterisk Users List
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users
T.38 is a codec in exactly the same way that GSM or G.729 is a codec, so
yes it /can/ be used at the same time as any other codec - just that
only /one/ codec will be used at a time. What often happens is that the
call will initially be established with a codec such as G.729 or G.711a,
but once fa
Rob Hillis wrote:
> Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk
> has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it
> became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of
> terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38.
>
I thought * was
Not unless you're running CallWeaver or Asterisk 1.6.0-beta4. Asterisk
has had passthrough support for T.38 for a while (somewhere in 1.4 it
became available IIRC) but is currently completely incapable of
terminating or encoding a fax call to T.38.
The only real option available at the moment
Hi,
Could some one let me know if a fax is received through a FXO card
connected to * and fax machine is connected to a Linksys FXS device
which support T38, is T38 going to be used for faxes which comes from
PSTN or go through PSTN ? or because of Asterisk T38 passthrough support
it is not po
Ejay Hire wrote:
This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP
are you sure? ;)
we can connect two zaptel channels directly (example - call from channel
bank to pstn. both connections to channel bank and pstn are e1).
___
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:29:32PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:08:43AM -0600, Ejay Hire wrote:
> > This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP which
> > provides the same echo cancellation and distortion issues as a call that
> > passed throug
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:08:43AM -0600, Ejay Hire wrote:
> This is incorrect. The data is still packetized and passed through IP which
> provides the same echo cancellation and distortion issues as a call that
> passed through an FXO/FXS card.
The issue here is an "implementation bug" of Zaptel
: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:42 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
Dovid B wrote:
> Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over
> 2-3 FXO cards ?
> Thanks.
channel ban
Dovid B wrote:
Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over
2-3 FXO cards ?
Thanks.
channel bank is more friendly to faxes and modems (v90 can work too)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-us
>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with T1
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:57PM +0200, Dovid B wrote:
Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank
over 2-3 FXO cards ?
If you need enough ports to
Looking at the number's now it seems that a T1 will be more.
Anyone here sell PRI's ?
- Original Message -
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FXO Cards vs. Channel bank with
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:57PM +0200, Dovid B wrote:
>Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank
>over 2-3 FXO cards ?
If you need enough ports to make a T-1 card cost-efficient, then you
might oughtta be looking at an Ethernet to FXO media gateway instead --
assum
Dovid B wrote:
Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a channel bank over 2-3 FXO
cards ?
Thanks.
In my experience a T-1 port w/channel bank just works better. The more
cards you use, the more interrupts are generated.
My standard configuration for analog FXS ports is a T-1 card
YES!
Many machines do NOT work well with multiple analog cards. Especially
the Digium ones.
Channel banks with FXO circuits are harder to come by on the used
market, though
Many all FXS channel banks can be had used, though.
If you want multiple FXO's and do not want to go the T1 route, look
Is there any advantage of getting a T1 card with a
channel bank over 2-3 FXO cards ?
Thanks.
Dovid
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digiu
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:14:37PM -0500, Steven Sokol wrote:
> > Is there any word on the availability of the FXO cards for the TDM400P?
> > I have an application that would benefit. If it has been dropped please
> > let me know.
>
> Word has it that they should hit distributors in the next week
> Is there any word on the availability of the FXO cards for the TDM400P?
> I have an application that would benefit. If it has been dropped please
> let me know.
Word has it that they should hit distributors in the next week or perhaps
two. One caveat -- they do not have FCC certifications yet.
Not to sound like a broken record but..
Is there any word on the availability of the FXO cards for the TDM400P?
I have an application that would benefit. If it has been dropped please
let me know.
Thanks
Gene Kochanowsky
___
Asterisk-Users mailing
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Barton Hodges wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
>
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Barton Hodges wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
> >> I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone
> elses
> >> experienc
#x27;t get phones or parts for it anymore.
Paul Mahler
mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 650.207.9855
fax: 877.408.0105
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Rowley
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Aste
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> > >> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
> > > Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install.
that 2 cards limit was primarily meant for E400P or T400P, not the X100P
(not sure if it'd be IRQ dependent because both the X100P and
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 19:11, Barton Hodges wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
> >> I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone
> elses
> >>
- Original Message -
From: "Steven Critchfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
>
Comments Inline
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sri
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 4:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
> This maybe a stupid question. Pardon me.
> I see e
ay, December 09, 2003 8:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
>
>
> > You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP
> provider that
> > will give you a DID for your local calling area.
>
> Why do you
w
Kohlsmith
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
> You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that
> will give you a DID for your local calling area.
Why do you need to? Get a couple
> You might want to double check that you can find a VOIP provider that
> will give you a DID for your local calling area.
Why do you need to? Get a couple of regular PSTN ports for your inbound
calls.
... unless I'm missing something.
Regards,
Andrew
__
> I see everyone talking about purchasing the channel bank from ebay.
> 1. As a user who has never used ebay, are these used equipments ?
> 2. Are these reliable in terms of all ports working and all hardware
> intact? 3. Is there a huge price difference between purchasing it from a
> authorized de
> Are the Aastra PTXXX phones ADSI? How compatable are they with asterisk?
> I see some PT450s on eBay for reasonable prices, and I just may be
> tempted to pick one up for fun. Is it worthwhile?
Yes they're ADSI. They work very well with *, to the extent that * has ADSI
support. (meaning *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
>> I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone
elses
>> experience
>
> Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install.
Can y
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 19:38, Chris Albertson wrote:
> I just bought a machine with a "micro atx" form factor
> for Asterisk. It has no CDROM, keyboard, or video. just
> RAM and a CPU and a very small disk (4GB) I paid
> $50 each for the CPU, M/B, RAM and case for $200 total.
What were th
Andrew
Kohlsmith
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 2:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards
> 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5
> to save money.
> I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that
>
This maybe a stupid question. Pardon me.
I see everyone talking about purchasing the channel bank from ebay.
1. As a user who has never used ebay, are these used equipments ?
2. Are these reliable in terms of all ports working and all hardware intact?
3. Is there a huge price difference betw
I just bought a machine with a "micro atx" form factor
for Asterisk. It has no CDROM, keyboard, or video. just
RAM and a CPU and a very small disk (4GB) I paid
$50 each for the CPU, M/B, RAM and case for $200 total.
OK, so back to your question: Buy a stack of the above
boxes and put three FX
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:18, Michael Rowley wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
> I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses
> experience
Read the docs. 2 card maximum sane install.
--
Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 15:00, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> > $500 - T100P card
> > $500 - decent PC
> > $800 - bad ebay day for a channel bank
> > $480 - 16 analog phones at $30 (att 957 with speakerphone)
>
> that $800 will be very good actually if you can find an Adit600 with FXO
> ports... they a
Hey guys,
has anyone put 6 of the wildcat X100P cards in one machine?
I am thinking about putting 6 in one machine, what is everyone elses
experience
Michael Rowley MD
FP
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman
a DID for your local calling area.
Ed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Albertson
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FXO cards - low cost systems
Comments on this are welc
> $500 - T100P card
> $500 - decent PC
> $800 - bad ebay day for a channel bank
> $480 - 16 analog phones at $30 (att 957 with speakerphone)
that $800 will be very good actually if you can find an Adit600 with FXO
ports... they are scarce on ebay and always command higher prices.
If he wants di
Michael Rowley wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system
> for my new buisiness.
>
> 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with
> 5
> to save money.
>
> I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding
> app
Comments on this are welcome. Here is my opinion...
I just went through this. Your office size is not economical.
Actually smaller or larger would be better. Getting a channel bank
and then using only 8 ports is a waste. OK if you have 24 extensions
but 3x to expensive if you only use 8 port
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 13:02, Michael Rowley wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system
> for my new buisiness.
>
> 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5
> to save money.
>
> I was thinking of using Asterisk, but hav
what city are you in?
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Rowley wrote:
Hey,
Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system
for my new buisiness.
6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5
to save money.
I was thinking of using Asterisk, but havi
> 6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5
> to save money.
> I had thought of using a channel bank, but what a pain in the ass that
> is becoming. For one, they are expensive, and I then have to buy the
> T1 card for the phone server. I though, why not go with
Hey,
Here is a quesion for you. I am still battling with the phone system
for my new buisiness.
6 incoming lines, 1 fax, DSL. 8 phones max, will provably start with 5
to save money.
I was thinking of using Asterisk, but having difficulty finding
appropriate buisiness phones. The Mitel 5055
ssage-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > > > Gonzalo Servat
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Us
L PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > > Gonzalo Servat
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Gorya
AFAIK NetJet cards are only capi under a emulation driver on windows.
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:17, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before
> > going live.
>
> Yeah, so I've heard.
>
> > A
Hello,
Inbound dtmf works without patches but you do here tones now and again
which is annoying.
Echo can be bad, I think it has to do with analogue phone lines at other
end, mobile and digital calls seem to be okay from what I have seen.
As for outbound DTMF, the ISDN driver does not generate
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Gonzalo Servat
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > > Yes
; [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Gonzalo Servat
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 12:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FXO Cards in Australia
>
>
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > Yes, echo problems do still exis
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:53, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before
> going live.
Yeah, so I've heard.
> A couple of points to note:
> 1) Using soft phones seems to compound the issue
So the echo problems are not so bad when using software ph
> You mentioned echo problems with the NetJet cards. Is this still the
> case or was it last time you tried that it that had echo
> problems? I did
> a Google search and didn't find much on the echo problems with them.
Yes, echo problems do still exist, I would suggest testing it before
going liv
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:32:50PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:00, Anthony Wood wrote:
> > ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines.
> > The only problem is you can't have ADSL & ISDN on the same line.
> >
> > We upgraded from 2 analogu
material. No warranty is made that this material is free
from computer virus or any other defect.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gonzalo
Servat
Sent: Monday, 17 November 2003 4:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] FX
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 16:00, Anthony Wood wrote:
> ISDN (telstra Onramp 2) is very similar in price to standard telstra lines.
> The only problem is you can't have ADSL & ISDN on the same line.
>
> We upgraded from 2 analogue lines to 2 digital (i.e. 4 channels) for $250.
I was a bit turned off b
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:49:40PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 12:20, Anthony Wood wrote:
>
> > I have spoken to a number of Australian users who are successfully using:
> >
> > X100P
> > NetJet (echo issues)
> > AVM Fritz!Card
> >
> > I hope to add myself to their numbe
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 12:20, Anthony Wood wrote:
> I have spoken to a number of Australian users who are successfully using:
>
> X100P
> NetJet (echo issues)
> AVM Fritz!Card
>
> I hope to add myself to their number shortly, since we have recieved our Fritz!es
>
> Also [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems t
I am sure that others have used it directly...
I have used it indirectly hanging off PABX extensions and even tested
them on emulators... not a problem...
The x100p in their current form will never pass a-tick and even c-tick
might be questionable.
The CE version of the card I have never seen a
The answer is yes.
Peter
At 12:13 17/11/03 +1100, you wrote:
Hi All,
This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times,
so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card
to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My
question is: all le
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:13:09PM +1100, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times,
> so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card
> to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My
> questi
Hi All,
This topic has come up before in the Asterisk mailing list many times,
so I know that a lot of people have given up in waiting for a FXO card
to be approved by the Australian telecommunications authority. My
question is: all legalities aside - is anyone using a FXO card in
Australia succes
89 matches
Mail list logo
