From: Stephen Bosch
> Hi, Trevor:
>
> Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
> >> Stephen Bosch wrote:
> >>> Are BRI circuits what phone companies call "digital" lines for use
> >>> with digital sets, such as with digital Centrex?
> >>>
> >>> I'm not aware that Telus even offers BRI.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry -- BRI i
Hi, Trevor:
Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
>> Stephen Bosch wrote:
>>> Are BRI circuits what phone companies call "digital" lines for use
>>> with digital sets, such as with digital Centrex?
>>>
>>> I'm not aware that Telus even offers BRI.
>>>
>>> Sorry -- BRI is ISDN, not digital Centrex.
>>>
>>> I'm
> Stephen Bosch wrote:
>> Are BRI circuits what phone companies call "digital" lines for use
>> with digital sets, such as with digital Centrex?
>>
>> I'm not aware that Telus even offers BRI.
>>
>> Sorry -- BRI is ISDN, not digital Centrex.
>>
>> I'm still not aware that Telus even offers ISDN an
Stephen Bosch wrote:
> Stephen Bosch wrote:
>> Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
>>> Yuan,
>>> Well engineered analogue PBXs typically do not use standard loop start
>>> subscriber lines. When digital trunks are not an option, they use analogue
>>> PBX and/or DID trunks. At the very least, ground start c
Stephen Bosch wrote:
> Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
>> Yuan,
>> Well engineered analogue PBXs typically do not use standard loop start
>> subscriber lines. When digital trunks are not an option, they use analogue
>> PBX and/or DID trunks. At the very least, ground start circuits are
>> preferred to
Trevor G. Hammonds wrote:
> Yuan,
> Well engineered analogue PBXs typically do not use standard loop start
> subscriber lines. When digital trunks are not an option, they use analogue
> PBX and/or DID trunks. At the very least, ground start circuits are
> preferred to avoid "glare". The best cal
Yes, on the lines I get from some ILECs here in NY, also when
connected to a Panasonic TA-824 (don't ask me why).
On 2/9/07, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 07:22:27AM -0500, C F wrote:
> Because it just works.
>
> On 2/8/07, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 07:22:27AM -0500, C F wrote:
> Because it just works.
>
> On 2/8/07, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:38:30PM -0500, C F wrote:
> >> This device can solve many problems, and is a must for most
> >> applications where asterisk is connect
Because it just works.
On 2/8/07, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:38:30PM -0500, C F wrote:
> This device can solve many problems, and is a must for most
> applications where asterisk is connected using FXO ports and the host
> PBX deosn't give CPC.
> http://w
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:38:30PM -0500, C F wrote:
This device can solve many problems, and is a must for most
applications where asterisk is connected using FXO ports and the host
PBX deosn't give CPC.
http://www.sandman.com/wizard.html#CPCGenerator
How does it compare
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:38:30PM -0500, C F wrote:
> This device can solve many problems, and is a must for most
> applications where asterisk is connected using FXO ports and the host
> PBX deosn't give CPC.
> http://www.sandman.com/wizard.html#CPCGenerator
How does it compare to busydetect of
This device can solve many problems, and is a must for most
applications where asterisk is connected using FXO ports and the host
PBX deosn't give CPC.
http://www.sandman.com/wizard.html#CPCGenerator
On 2/6/07, Eric ManxPower Wieling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yuan LIU wrote:
> After reading thr
(Previous reply got garbled in Hotmail)
From: "Trevor G. Hammonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:49:08 -0800> > From: Yuan LIU> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:11 PM> >> > After reading through several recent threads, I started to wonder why the> > Cisco document (and other VoI
From: "Trevor G. Hammonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > From: Yuan LIU> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:11 PM> >> > After reading through several recent threads, I started to wonder why the> > Cisco document (and other VoIP documents) appears to present this issue as> > VoIP gateway specific. D
> From: Yuan LIU
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:11 PM
>
> After reading through several recent threads, I started to wonder why
> the
> Cisco document (and other VoIP documents) appears to present this issue
> as
> VoIP gateway specific. Don't (plain old) PBX' face the same issue if
> they
At 05.23 07/02/2007, you wrote:
Yuan LIU wrote:
After reading through several recent threads, I started to wonder
why the Cisco document (and other VoIP documents) appears to
present this issue as VoIP gateway specific. Don't (plain old)
PBX' face the same issue if they use analogue interface
Yuan LIU wrote:
After reading through several recent threads, I started to wonder why
the Cisco document (and other VoIP documents) appears to present this
issue as VoIP gateway specific. Don't (plain old) PBX' face the same
issue if they use analogue interfaces? If there are analogue PBX' at
17 matches
Mail list logo
