|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > December 2005 > How to get extra lines with SPA-3000?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How to get extra lines with SPA-3000?
|
|
| Joe Harrison 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| I have an SPA-3000 set up with a DECT base-station in the FXS port and
configured for a Sipgate account. Trouble is although there are two DECT
handsets I can never actually make or receive telephone calls because both
handsets are always randomly hidden around the house - usually under a pile
of teenage junk in kids bedrooms.
Is there any way I can add two extra lines for kids exclusive use so they
leave mine alone? I have a strong feeling that if it can be done at all then
the answer is going to involve Asterisk; would be prepared to do this with
an old PC but just so long as I don't have to spend out on special voice
boards or anything. I don't really understand how Asterisk works or how it
would interface with the SPA.
| |
| Brian A 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:38:52 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
<newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>I have an SPA-3000 set up with a DECT base-station in the FXS port and
>configured for a Sipgate account. Trouble is although there are two DECT
>handsets I can never actually make or receive telephone calls because both
>handsets are always randomly hidden around the house - usually under a pile
>of teenage junk in kids bedrooms.
>
>Is there any way I can add two extra lines for kids exclusive use so they
>leave mine alone? I have a strong feeling that if it can be done at all then
>the answer is going to involve Asterisk; would be prepared to do this with
>an old PC but just so long as I don't have to spend out on special voice
>boards or anything. I don't really understand how Asterisk works or how it
>would interface with the SPA.
>
I think that there are basically 3 answers to your problem.
1. 'Asterisk at home' software - loads very easily in one go and will
work on an oldish machine. Installation will probably take about half
an hour as it whirs away on its own - no need for intervention.
2. Get another ATA - you can use more than one - it's just another IP.
3. Get some SIP phones - again just more IPs to add to the system.
I think option 3 is out on cost grounds and other possible port
forwarding problems.
Option 1 affords the maximum flexibility but requires some learning.
Option 2 is possible - you might find something on ebay.
The only problem I can foresee with option 2 is port forwarding as you
already have one ATA..
You would probably be best with an ATA which went before the router in
this case - someone else here with more experience might be able to
advise on that one.
As regards Asterisk: The ATA connects to the system as it does now but
the computer links to it via its IP on the internal network. With
'Asterisk at home' you will be able to control the old computer ( you
Asterisk box) via a web interface on your usual computer - so no need
for a monitor etc. on your old computer once it has been set up.
If you are prepared to spend a little time learning how to operate
'Asterisk at Home' then this would be the best option.
The only disadvantage is the cost of electriciy so you need to choose
a computer that isn't too power hungry and possibly put it on a timer
so it switches off whilst the kids are in bed.
Take a look at:
http://asteriskathome.sourceforge.net/
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:38:52 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
<newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>Trouble is although there are two DECT
>handsets I can never actually make or receive telephone calls because both
>handsets are always randomly hidden around the house
a T-adaptor and a hard wired phone would resolve this ?
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
|
"Joe Harrison" <newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote in message
news:05q4f.1162$sm1.1053@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
> I have an SPA-3000 set up with a DECT base-station in the
> FXS port and configured for a Sipgate account. Trouble is
> although there are two DECT handsets I can never actually
> make or receive telephone calls because both handsets are
> always randomly hidden around the house - usually under a
> pile of teenage junk in kids bedrooms.
>
> Is there any way I can add two extra lines for kids
> exclusive use so they leave mine alone? I have a strong
> feeling that if it can be done at all then the answer is
> going to involve Asterisk; would be prepared to do this
> with an old PC but just so long as I don't have to spend
> out on special voice boards or anything. I don't really
> understand how Asterisk works or how it would interface
> with the SPA.
An additional ATA would probably be the easiest option. I have 4 Sipgate
numbers and one FWD number here..!
Note though that it is sometimes difficult to get two ATA's working behind
one router, but it can usually be done.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3rfackFj8dm2U1@individual.net...
>
>
> "Joe Harrison" <newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote in message
> news:05q4f.1162$sm1.1053@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
>
> An additional ATA would probably be the easiest option. I have 4 Sipgate
> numbers and one FWD number here..!
>
> Note though that it is sometimes difficult to get two ATA's working behind
> one router, but it can usually be done.
>
> Ivor
>
>
I use a netgear router and have never had to forward ports to make or
recieve calls using sipgate using either a ATA or SoftPhone thats the idea
of the stun address "stun.sipgate.net:10000"
--
"Customise Your Mobile http://ringtones.tekmobile.co.uk"
"Join Our New Forum http://forums.tekmobile.co.uk"
"Check Your Speed http://speedtest.tekmobile.co.uk"
"HomePage http://www.tekmobile.co.uk"
| |
|
| Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> Note though that it is sometimes difficult to get two ATA's working
> behind one router, but it can usually be done.
At that point, it's usually less bother to get an Asterisk box with
two (virtual) network interfaces on the job.
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On 16 Oct 2005 16:20:26 GMT, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter) wrote:
>less bother to get an Asterisk box
not a phrase you hear often.
Less bother to get a SIP aware modem/router maybe, but Asterisk is a
bit of a mouthful for most people to chew on - after all, we didn't
need telephone exchanges in our houses before so why should we need
Asterisk now ?
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
|
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:51:45 +0100, Phil Thompson
<phil.thompson@spamcop.net> scrawled:
>we didn't
>need telephone exchanges in our houses before so why should we need
>Asterisk now ?
We don't really need computers, TV's, radios, electricity, central
heating etc... At one time every lived in caves.
--
Stuart @ SJW Electrical
Please Reply to group
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| Phil Thompson wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2005 16:20:26 GMT, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter) wrote:
>
> not a phrase you hear often.
>
> Less bother to get a SIP aware modem/router maybe, but Asterisk is a
> bit of a mouthful for most people to chew on - after all, we didn't
> need telephone exchanges in our houses before so why should we need
> Asterisk now ?
You didn't have N lines then either (where N >2 for example). And if you
did, you didn't get away with paying for one and piggy-backing the
others at (possibly) no charge and allowing multiple simultaneous calls.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:07:30 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>You didn't have N lines then either
I did actually, and I used multiple call carriers on them, still
didn't need an exchange :-)
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:36:50 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Note though that it is sometimes difficult to get two ATA's working behind
>one router, but it can usually be done.
Glad you said "sometimes" Ivor we have three working behind one router
here Vonage, a Sipura 2000 running the voiphone line and another
running the Freetalk line and no problams at all.
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:03:05 +0100, Lurch <usenet@sjwelectrical.co.uk>
wrote:
>We don't really need computers, TV's, radios, electricity, central
>heating etc... At one time every lived in caves.
Couldn't agree more people used to talk to each other in those days
and make their own entertainment .
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: theoldbakery.cupis.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: custnews.inweb.co.uk 1129493344 14342 213.210.14.210 (16 Oct 2005 20:09:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@inweb.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:09:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051010)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <gj65l157r97lj36vkehl5pnlpalfck7jlt@4ax.com>
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.telecom.voip:8808
Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:07:30 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> I did actually, and I used multiple call carriers on them, still
> didn't need an exchange :-)
Well I sit corrected, but surely you understand my point?
| |
|
| Brian A wrote:
> The only disadvantage is the cost of electriciy so you need to choose
> a computer that isn't too power hungry and possibly put it on a timer
> so it switches off whilst the kids are in bed.
One can also install Asterisk on some routers eg Linksys WRT54G, but I
suspect these are rather low-horsepower systems, and you couldn't run a
call centre on it for example.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
21:16:25 up 12 days, 2:24, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.13, 0.18
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Joe Harrison 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks for suggestions. I have to say I'm kind of peeved with the SPA-3000 -
it's infinitely configureable thus hard work to understand and yet every
time I want it to do something objectively useful (extra lines, least cost
routing, resilient routing) it turns out that the box can't directly support
it.
I'm especially cross that the SPA-2000 does in fact have two FXS so my extra
line problem could have been solved easily if I'd bought the earlier model.
| |
|
| Phil Thompson <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2005 16:20:26 GMT, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter) wrote:
> not a phrase you hear often.
*grin*
> Less bother to get a SIP aware modem/router maybe, but Asterisk is a
> bit of a mouthful for most people to chew on
Take cheap PC, wave Debian over it, aptitude install asterisk, edit
sip.conf and extensions.conf, and you're done.
> after all, we didn't need telephone exchanges in our houses before
> so why should we need Asterisk now ?
Before now, we had one phone, provided by the GPO, in a choice of any
colour as long as it was brown, and it was screwed to the wall.
--
I worry that if SETI succeeds, I may start receiving Klingon Spam.
- Tanuki the Raccoon-dog in the Monastery
| |
| Philippe Deleye 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
|
> An additional ATA would probably be the easiest option. I have 4 Sipgate
> numbers and one FWD number here..!
>
> Note though that it is sometimes difficult to get two ATA's working behind
> one router, but it can usually be done.
I'm using a (german) Fritz!Fon Box WLAN:
all-in-one: modem, router, VOIP, wireless lan
with 3 analoge ports, and 1 ISDN port (where you can connect up to 8 ISDN
devices)
I have 8 VOIP accounts registered, all working
no issues with port forwarding ...
Ph
| |
|
|
Joe Harrison wrote:
|| Thanks for suggestions. I have to say I'm kind of peeved with the
|| SPA-3000 - it's infinitely configureable thus hard work to
|| understand and yet every time I want it to do something objectively
|| useful (extra lines, least cost routing, resilient routing) it turns
|| out that the box can't directly support it.
||
|| I'm especially cross that the SPA-2000 does in fact have two FXS so
|| my extra line problem could have been solved easily if I'd bought
|| the earlier model.
Different, not necessarily earlier.
The 2k cannot connect directly to PSTN, the 3k can.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On 16 Oct 2005 20:49:26 GMT, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter) wrote:
>Before now, we had one phone, provided by the GPO, in a choice of any
>colour as long as it was brown, and it was screwed to the wall.
that was before 20 years ago, no need to get carried away. I'm talking
about what someone did last week with analogue compared to something
similar next week with VoIP.
>Take cheap PC, wave Debian over it,
oh look, it didn't find the ethernet card. :-(
>aptitude install asterisk, edit
>sip.conf and extensions.conf, and you're done."
and how many man-hours should a novice realistically budget for this ?
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:09:03 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Well I sit corrected, but surely you understand my point?
I do. Asterisk is highly versatile and hence highly complex. It is far
from trivial to setup and configure and needs a PC running 24/7.
If you need multiple lines, multiple extensions, voicemail, call
forwarding etc its the ideal solution.
In other words if your requirements would have dictated an analogue
switchboard then an Asterisk/VoIP solution would be equivalent or
better.
For most domestic users an ATA seems to be sufficiently offputting so
I think Asterisk is out of the question for them. An ATA that provides
a coupler of incoming providers and up to 4 outgoing providers should
cover most requirements for domestic use.
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
| Joe Harrison 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
|
"Jono" <no@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6Pz4f.130481$G8.112225@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> || I'm especially cross that the SPA-2000 does in fact have two FXS so
> || my extra line problem could have been solved easily if I'd bought
> || the earlier model.
>
> Different, not necessarily earlier.
>
> The 2k cannot connect directly to PSTN, the 3k can.
Is it just me or is the ability to connect to PSTN completely useless for
the domestic user?
For me the whole point of having VOIP is so I can get rid of PSTN line and
stop paying its expensive line rental and call charges.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
|
"Joe Harrison" <newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote in message
news:In35f.416$m4.93@newsfe2-win.ntli.net
> "Jono" <no@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6Pz4f.130481$G8.112225@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Is it just me or is the ability to connect to PSTN
> completely useless for the domestic user?
Useless to you perhaps, but not everyone.
> For me the whole point of having VOIP is so I can get rid
> of PSTN line and stop paying its expensive line rental
> and call charges.
That's a valid point, but again it doesn't apply to everyone.
My AVM Fritz!Box has the ability to act as a call forwarding device, if
you call in on the PSTN line it can dial out on the VoIP line, or vice
versa. This is useful for a lot of people. I believe the Sipura 3000 has a
similar facility.
Ivor
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
<newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>Is it just me or is the ability to connect to PSTN completely useless for
>the domestic user?
its just you.
70% of UK broadband is ADSL over a PSTN line, so the line is there
anyway and can continue to receive incoming or be used for outgoing
if/when its cheaper than the VoIP or the VoIP / ADSL goes titsup.
So integrating VoIP and PSTN onto one phone or set of phones seems
very sensible to me, especially as it can be made invisible to
technophobic users.
The case is less strong if you have non-ADSL broadband.
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
|
"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in
message news:fjl9l1plrk1719131uha1lusv7il5bopt8@
4ax.com
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
> <newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>
>
> its just you.
Not just him, but a lot of people think this way.
> 70% of UK broadband is ADSL over a PSTN line, so the line
> is there anyway and can continue to receive incoming or
> be used for outgoing if/when its cheaper than the VoIP or
> the VoIP / ADSL goes titsup.
Indeed. Which is why the devices that do connect to PSTN usually have a
fallback option to PSTN if the power fails.
> So integrating VoIP and PSTN onto one phone or set of
> phones seems very sensible to me, especially as it can be
> made invisible to technophobic users.
Agreed. I have 4 Sipgate lines into my PABX, where they appear alongside
the PSTN as just more exchange lines. The system can route calls over the
most appropriate route, or you can select a particular line if you want
to.
> The case is less strong if you have non-ADSL broadband.
For domestic users, yes. For businesses, or those of us who are just plain
telephone nuts, less so..!
Ivor
| |
| Brian A 2005-10-19, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
<newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>
>"Jono" <no@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6Pz4f.130481$G8.112225@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>Is it just me or is the ability to connect to PSTN completely useless for
>the domestic user?
>
>For me the whole point of having VOIP is so I can get rid of PSTN line and
>stop paying its expensive line rental and call charges.
>
For my part I agree. I ditched my BT line and took a TW broadband
connection with no landline in order to save on the line rental.
Having said that with 8M speeds in the offing via LLU, and some LLU
going at £9.99/month, it may soon be just as cheap to be on BT and
have a fast broadband connection.
I have an SPA-3000 but don't use the PSTN connection. However, I am
thinking of using that to connect to a door phone - a 50V d.c. supply,
a IK resistor and a cannibalised phone should be all I will need I
think.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-12-14, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
<newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>For me the whole point of having VOIP is so I can get rid of PSTN line and
>stop paying its expensive line rental and call charges.
We have ADSL running on a PSTN line. Without the line, there would be
no ADSL, and so no VOIP.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-12-14, 5:45 pm |
|
<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:l4u0q1pjg8a2ca4onme0tdvh8n5sc20lq9@
4ax.com
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
> <newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>
>
> We have ADSL running on a PSTN line. Without the line,
> there would be no ADSL, and so no VOIP.
It's called cable. Granted not everyone has it, but if you do you can have
broadband (not ADSL..!) over it with no phone service.
Ivor
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-12-14, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:55:49 +0000, in uk.telecom.voip ,
hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:37:44 GMT, "Joe Harrison"
><newscontrol@crylo.com> wrote:
>
>
>We have ADSL running on a PSTN line. Without the line, there would be
>no ADSL, and so no VOIP.
Some of us have cable. :-)
But your basic point is valid. The idiots who claim they can stop
paying line rental are one brick short of a full load.
I pay 10.50/month cable rental, plus £2 phone on top of that. If I
switch to VOIP, I still pay the 10.50. So I save two quid, minus the
cost of the VOIP service (say a quid). Whoopy doo. I can buy a whole
four more pints per year...
----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Brian A 2005-12-14, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:36:57 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:55:49 +0000, in uk.telecom.voip ,
>hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
>
>
>Some of us have cable. :-)
>
>But your basic point is valid. The idiots who claim they can stop
>paying line rental are one brick short of a full load.
>
>I pay 10.50/month cable rental, plus £2 phone on top of that. If I
>switch to VOIP, I still pay the 10.50. So I save two quid, minus the
>cost of the VOIP service (say a quid). Whoopy doo. I can buy a whole
>four more pints per year...
>
Telewest charge me £14.99/month for broadband (rising to £17.99 twelve
months from the start of the contract). That is it! That is why I
switched from BT. I don't want cable phone anyway. Who would want to
use a service that charges 6p for a connection and have to dial
0800s/0808s to access a limited number of LCRs. For me it has to be
(a)Cable broadband and voip or (b) BT landline, with access to all
LCRs, and broadband - I chose (a).
Telewest will be increasing the Broadband speed shortly and this will
exceed what I can get, currently, from a BT line.
So long as TW offer a reasonable service and don't increase the
charges I'll stick with them,. That is, unless BT offers something
very new and tempting at an economic rate. I don't see that happening
any time soon.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
| |
|
| Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> It's called cable. Granted not everyone has it, but if you do you
> can have broadband (not ADSL..!) over it with no phone service.
It's rather moot in any case, as I gather that NTL round here charge
exactly the same for broadband with a phone service as they do for
broadband alone, and they're also determined to shove the Idiot's
Lantern into your home as well.
NTL's T+Cs for broadband are also more onerous than, for example, the
BT and Zen combination I have. The Freeview box does just fine - given
I mostly only use it for listening to Radio 4 anyway.
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-12-15, 7:45 am |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:23:57 GMT, in uk.telecom.voip , Brian A
<no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Telewest charge me £14.99/month for broadband (rising to £17.99 twelve
>months from the start of the contract). That is it!
/including/ phone line? Or you're saying you don't have one? I agree
I could ditch my phone entirely, and pay only 25 quid for the
broadband. However I'd then have no phone for emergency calls, no way
for anyone to call me if my router died or I blew a fuse at the wrong
time etc etc etc. YMMV of course.
----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Brian A 2005-12-15, 5:45 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:01:52 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:23:57 GMT, in uk.telecom.voip , Brian A
><no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>/including/ phone line? Or you're saying you don't have one?
Correct! Don't have one.
> I agree
>I could ditch my phone entirely, and pay only 25 quid for the
>broadband.
I guess that you have a faster connection than me, for £25....mine is
only 512k but it is going up to 2M soon.
>However I'd then have no phone for emergency calls, no way
>for anyone to call me if my router died or I blew a fuse at the wrong
>time etc etc etc. YMMV of course.
If I want to make an emergency call I have 3 mobiles in various parts
of the house. My voip provider does 999s - supposedly - though I
haven't tried it out. Obviously though, it is only as reliable as my
broadband service.
For the short time that someone might not be able to get me on my
landline they can call my mobile. I only give out my 'landline' number
to a handful of people anyway.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-12-15, 5:45 pm |
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:d6q2q1tm2m9tlqht697c4tj5jd0songah8@
4ax.com
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:23:57 GMT, in uk.telecom.voip ,
> Brian A <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> /including/ phone line? Or you're saying you don't have
> one? I agree
> I could ditch my phone entirely, and pay only 25 quid for
> the
> broadband. However I'd then have no phone for emergency
> calls, no way
> for anyone to call me if my router died or I blew a fuse
> at the wrong
> time etc etc etc. YMMV of course.
Most (but I agree not all) people have a mobile these days, which could be
used for emergency calls.
Ivor
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-12-15, 5:45 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:12:34 -0000, in uk.telecom.voip , "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>Most (but I agree not all) people have a mobile these days, which could be
>used for emergency calls.
Two words: flat battery.
You'll have 'em rolling in the aisles with your tales of delivering
twins at home 'cos your mobe battery was flat and the babies came
during a power cut... :-)
Its an interesting point tho. All our existing POTS phones are
cordless -> they all need power to the base unit to work. So
technically in a powercut we're dead. I therefore keep a crappy old
line-powered phone in a cupboard so we can at least phone the power
company and report the fault.
I suppose the ideal is to get a UPS on your router & ATA & at least
one phone. *more* costs...
----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-12-15, 8:45 pm |
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:fdt3q1lvedc0kgjhfblggc32saed563ajr@
4ax.com
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:12:34 -0000, in uk.telecom.voip ,
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Two words: flat battery.
Two more words - spare battery..! I have at least one spare battery for
each of my mobiles, with a desk charger that will charge it off the phone.
The main one gets charged from the car kit anyway. Never found myself with
a flat battery and no spare in 10 years of using mobiles. Not once. Ever.
It's called planning.
> You'll have 'em rolling in the aisles with your tales of
> delivering twins at home 'cos your mobe battery was
> flat and the babies came during a power cut... :-)
If you're too lazy to make sure you have a charged battery in your mobile,
knowing it would be your only means of contact in an emergency, whose
fault is that..?
> Its an interesting point tho. All our existing POTS
> phones are cordless -> they all need power to the
> base unit to work. So technically in a powercut
> we're dead. I therefore keep a crappy old
> line-powered phone in a cupboard so we can at
> least phone the power company and report the fault.
All DECT phone manuals I've seen tell you to keep an ordinary phone
plugged in at all times for just this reason. I personally don't like
cordless landline phones, I prefer wired ones. I do have one for times
when I need to go walkabout, but it's rarely used. My PABX is set to ring
designated extensions all over the house on all lines, both POTS and VoIP
so I'm always within earshot/reach of one.
> I suppose the ideal is to get a UPS on your router & ATA
> & at least one phone. *more* costs...
Any system that needs to be usable in case of power failure should be run
off a UPS. That's basic, surely..?
Ivor
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2005-12-15, 8:45 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:49:13 -0000, in uk.telecom.voip , "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:fdt3q1lvedc0kgjhfblggc32saed563ajr@
4ax.com
>
>Two more words - spare battery..! I have at least one spare battery for
>each of my mobiles, with a desk charger that will charge it off the phone.
Desk chargers/ Another cost....
>The main one gets charged from the car kit anyway. Never found myself with
>a flat battery and no spare in 10 years of using mobiles. Not once. Ever.
Mine is always going flat. I don't drive. Spare batteries are pretty
expensive.
>If you're too lazy to make sure you have a charged battery in your mobile,
>knowing it would be your only means of contact in an emergency, whose
>fault is that..?
Batteries die. Mobes get used rarely by some people.
>
>Any system that needs to be usable in case of power failure should be run
>off a UPS. That's basic, surely..?
So now my "cost saving" of 10.50 a month has to be adjusted by the
cost of an ATA, the cost of my VOIP provider, the cost of a spare
mobile phone battery (and possibly the cost of a mobile phone) a
special doodad to charge the phone battery separately from the phone,
the cost of a UPS for my ATA, fixed line phone and router, and the
cost of electricity to run all that.
I guess its probably still cheaper, but... :-)
----== Posted via webservertalk.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.webservertalk.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-12-18, 5:45 pm |
| On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:03:55 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>I suppose the ideal is to get a UPS on your router & ATA & at least
>one phone. *more* costs...
We have the router, the ATAs the cordless phone base station and a few
other "vital" devices connected to a UPS. Have done for years.
As for this idea about mobiles having flat batteries, that's stupid.
Li-Ion batteries don't benefit from being discharged, so charge the
phone every few days as a matter of routine, and it will never have a
flat battery.
--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
|
|
|
|
|