Hi Mark
I read your post with interest - i'd also like to know the best way of faxing with Linux. Winfax i don't think is your best choice. I also have tried winfax and it is quite a complicated app with telephone answering m/c etc. Difficult to incorporate with Wine i would have thought - but i'm only a newbie to Linux.
For several years i've used an excellent small programme called FaxNow - printer driver sending any doc from any application (simple but effective). I got it on a pc mag CD. Receiving is the problem as one has to switch the line manually to receive. So i used eFax to receive [free for 20 faxes a month] and this last year Faxtastic [free but needs to receive at least one fax per quarter to keep account open]. I always got better quality faxes than a fax machine and no costs. These were .tif files. I noticed you mentioned pdfs - the ones i've looked at were tiff but pdf you probably pay for.
Reading faxes is the problem - what they are read with must be able to read MULTIPLE PAGES. Most viewers are able to read a single sheet e.g. PhotoImpact, XnView. I used the efax messenger for a while just to view - they make their money on sending. I did find a multiple page viewer http://www.tiffsuite.theimageanvil.co.uk/ No one else mentioned this. I can't see how converting files is going to allow for multiple pages. I found the Tiff Viewer basic but reliable - useful for looking through received faxes. Alternatively, when i started using FireFox found a tiff viewer as an addon to FireFox - www.alternatiff.com [this is excellent].
This was in windoze so as far as Linux goes... hopefully someone may know? a] Use alternatiff in Linux (it says only for windows but i've imported my windows themes into Linux Firefox so could work) and use Gfax or Faxnow (through wine) to send. If alternatiff won't work i'm sure the Tiff viewer would as it is a basic .exe app. b] Ubuntufax.com on VmWare - this is quite NEW i haven't investigated this yet but if it sends a pdf to your email problems solved. Ideal solution! b] Simple solution - pay £10-£20 per month for the variety of paid services. I will be keeping windows on a machine for some time so will probably just continue until a Linux solution comes along and i've stopped using windows.
I knew an IT consultant a few years back who recommended not using WinFax as he'd had known a lot of problems with it - you're welcome to a copy of FaxNow and the Tiff viewer if they'll run in Wine. I'm not as knowledgeable as some on the IT side but i don't think the answer is converting files or using WinFax.
james
James Freer wrote:
I read your post with interest - i'd also like to know the best way of faxing with Linux. Winfax i don't think is your best choice.
There are two separate issues here for me.
One is that at present the office uses Winfax, and I'm the only one using a Linux desktop, so that won't change in the short term. In its current configuration it emails faxes to me in .FXM format which I can't access from Linux.
The second issue is that, for a whole variety of reasons, Winfax is hell and we'd love to be rid of it. That's a longer term problem, but the solution needs to be Windows friendly (we have a number of low-tech customers we support who also use Winfax and who also need a replacement). Winfax has several limitations, most of which stem from its ownership (is it just me or is "being bought out by Symantec" the software equivalent of the kiss of death?). It has been discontinued, has problems in XP/SP2 and completely breaks with Vista, I believe, and has numerous bugs and odd "quirks" which you'd accept in version 1 of something like this but not version 10.
The solution to all of these problems, I am sure, is Hylafax, provided we can find a suitable Windows client (and provided we can get Hylafax working properly, something we've failed to do in the past, albeit with insufficient time to spend doing the job properly). Any suggestions along those lines from people using Hylafax welcomed - because if my inability to open .FXM files spurs me on to replacing Winfax altogether nobody is going to mourn its passing here.
[Aside: A recent upgrade to our internal mail server completely broke WinFax's ability to send faxes by email. After some diagnosis, it turned out that its SMTP client is "basic" to say the least. It sends commands without any checking of the responses, and since it does not send a HELO at the start of the conversation, and since the mail server upgrade meant that we started to require that, it sent entire faxes to the server without realising that each line it sent was being met with an error message. That kind of lazy programming in a mainstream package is scary! Fortunately we could configure the mail server not to require HELO and work around this, but if the writing wasn't on the wall for Winfax before then it was afterwards.]
NB: I have tried various things to get Winfax running under Wine as a temporary measure with no success. Since we're using a client-server model and since my PC is only a client, I didn't need to worry about modems etc. But it won't even install properly, and attempts to copy the files from another PC and just run the standalone fax viewer generate more errors than I care to waste time diagnosing.
Mark Rogers
Mark, What you describe below is appalling! Surely, on the basis of your diagnoses, Winfax is simply Not Fit For Purpose!
There must be mileage in a compensation claim ...
I just had a look at the home-page of http://www.winfax.com/
Right at the bottom I read (verbatim):
If you are looking for single user fax software or looking for a tech FAQ on fax software, please visit http://www.ntfaxfaq.com. On this site you will also find the link to the developer of Winfax, Symantec.
Please do not send us support mail about Winfax!!!
One respectfully sympathises ...
Regarding Hylafax, I have had this working successfully on a SuSE 7.2 system (now quite old) but in fact very rarely use fax these days (a PDF by email is OK for just about everybody now; even sending from printed hard-copy can be done by email after scanning into a TIFF/GIF file, or just using a good old-fashioned fax machine).
Anyway, back to Hylafax: setting it up as you want is a bit of a hassle initially, since the documentation tends to be cryptic, but I've found that a certain anmount of trial-and-error gets you there.
However, it's all too long ago now for me to usefully recall details. Sorry!
Ted.
On 15-Sep-07 13:16:25, Mark Rogers wrote:
James Freer wrote:
I read your post with interest - i'd also like to know the best way of faxing with Linux. Winfax i don't think is your best choice.
There are two separate issues here for me.
One is that at present the office uses Winfax, and I'm the only one using a Linux desktop, so that won't change in the short term. In its current configuration it emails faxes to me in .FXM format which I can't access from Linux.
The second issue is that, for a whole variety of reasons, Winfax is hell and we'd love to be rid of it. That's a longer term problem, but the solution needs to be Windows friendly (we have a number of low-tech customers we support who also use Winfax and who also need a replacement). Winfax has several limitations, most of which stem from its ownership (is it just me or is "being bought out by Symantec" the software equivalent of the kiss of death?). It has been discontinued, has problems in XP/SP2 and completely breaks with Vista, I believe, and has numerous bugs and odd "quirks" which you'd accept in version 1 of something like this but not version 10.
The solution to all of these problems, I am sure, is Hylafax, provided we can find a suitable Windows client (and provided we can get Hylafax working properly, something we've failed to do in the past, albeit with insufficient time to spend doing the job properly). Any suggestions along those lines from people using Hylafax welcomed - because if my inability to open .FXM files spurs me on to replacing Winfax altogether nobody is going to mourn its passing here.
[Aside: A recent upgrade to our internal mail server completely broke WinFax's ability to send faxes by email. After some diagnosis, it turned out that its SMTP client is "basic" to say the least. It sends commands without any checking of the responses, and since it does not send a HELO at the start of the conversation, and since the mail server upgrade meant that we started to require that, it sent entire faxes to the server without realising that each line it sent was being met with an error message. That kind of lazy programming in a mainstream package is scary! Fortunately we could configure the mail server not to require HELO and work around this, but if the writing wasn't on the wall for Winfax before then it was afterwards.]
NB: I have tried various things to get Winfax running under Wine as a temporary measure with no success. Since we're using a client-server model and since my PC is only a client, I didn't need to worry about modems etc. But it won't even install properly, and attempts to copy the files from another PC and just run the standalone fax viewer generate more errors than I care to waste time diagnosing.
Mark Rogers
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) ted.harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 15-Sep-07 Time: 14:56:19 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
James Freer jrjfreer@googlemail.com wrote:
I read your post with interest - i'd also like to know the best way of faxing with Linux. [...]
I have incoming faxes to an 08 number service which emails me a PDF. There are several such providers - I think mine is inweb.net.uk. Using an 08 number doesn't cost real senders much (I prefer email anyway), but seems to deter junk spammers.
I use efax on the rare occasions that I send faxes. It's a simple command-line file sender which copes with class I and II fax modems (I think hylafax only like class II). There's also efax-gtk, which I've not tried. You should find efax packages in most distributions. The debian one has quite a few patches by now, but I've seen some strange errors reported from 64-bit systems recently.
Hope that helps,
MJ Ray wrote:
I have incoming faxes to an 08 number service which emails me a PDF. There are several such providers - I think mine is inweb.net.uk. Using an 08 number doesn't cost real senders much (I prefer email anyway), but seems to deter junk spammers.
Isn't the scope for revenue generation being stopped on 0870 numbers shortly? I seem to remember that they will start being charged at the real national rate (ie what the provider charges for calls to 01/02 numbers) thereby removing the margin that allows them to provide revenue).
Found this: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419
.. but it doesn't give a date for the changes to come into effect. I'm sure I read elsewhere that it was imminent (end of this month?)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I have incoming faxes to an 08 number service which emails me a PDF. There are several such providers - I think mine is inweb.net.uk. Using an 08 number doesn't cost real senders much (I prefer email anyway), but seems to deter junk spammers.
Isn't the scope for revenue generation being stopped on 0870 numbers shortly? I seem to remember that they will start being charged at the real national rate (ie what the provider charges for calls to 01/02 numbers) thereby removing the margin that allows them to provide revenue).
Found this: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060419
.. but it doesn't give a date for the changes to come into effect. I'm sure I read elsewhere that it was imminent (end of this month?)
I *think* it's February 2008.
Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I have incoming faxes to an 08 number service which emails me a PDF.
[...] Isn't the scope for revenue generation being stopped on 0870 numbers shortly? I seem to remember that they will start being charged at the real national rate (ie what the provider charges for calls to 01/02 numbers) thereby removing the margin that allows them to provide revenue). [...]
I *think* it's February 2008.
I think it's February 2008. Revenue-share will continue on some other 08 prefixes, but I wouldn't sign up for any free (= really funded-by-revenue-share) 0870 service now.
Hope that helps,
** MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop [2007-09-17 12:14]:
Chris G cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:48AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
I have incoming faxes to an 08 number service which emails me a PDF.
[...] Isn't the scope for revenue generation being stopped on 0870 numbers shortly? I seem to remember that they will start being charged at the real national rate (ie what the provider charges for calls to 01/02 numbers) thereby removing the margin that allows them to provide revenue). [...]
I *think* it's February 2008.
I think it's February 2008. Revenue-share will continue on some other 08 prefixes, but I wouldn't sign up for any free (= really funded-by-revenue-share) 0870 service now.
** end quote [MJ Ray]
Yes it is February 2008. This means that revenue share on teh 0870 numbers will cease, but the 0871 numbers will no longer be regulated by Ofcom. These will be regulated by ICSTIS, who regulate the premium rate numbers. It isn't clear yet whether ICSTIS will be using their existing code of practice for the 09 numbers or whether they will be producing a new one specifically for the 0871 numbers.
I'd agree that it is worth watching the free services to see how they will respond to this because if they are relying on the revenue from the 0870 number they will be finding themselves providing a free service with no revenue generation. As I see it they can either require a number change onto the 0871 range, or bring in a charging system.
Brilliant timing though, I was just thinking of sorting out a virutal fax setup!
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
[...] As I see it they can either require a number change onto the 0871 range, or bring in a charging system. [...]
I think 0844 will continue as revenue-share, which is why I've switched to it. I'm also investigating other providers, as inweb haven't yet got into VoIP routing.
Regards,
** MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop [2007-09-17 13:40]:
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
[...] As I see it they can either require a number change onto the 0871 range, or bring in a charging system. [...]
I think 0844 will continue as revenue-share, which is why I've switched to it. I'm also investigating other providers, as inweb haven't yet got into VoIP routing.
** end quote [MJ Ray]
Interesting, I thought 0844 was just an extension of 0845, i.e. charged at local rate. Our surgery switched to it a while ago and was very keen to point out that this provided local rate calls to the surgery from wherever you were. At first sounded a bit silly since you'd have thought that calling your local surgery would be local rate anyway, but I guess you may need to call from work to book an appointment and be calling from outside the area - although that wouldn't be on your own phone bill, and if using a mobile it is anybodies guess what the call costs would be; even freephone numbers aren't free from mobiles.
What do you mean by VoIP routing? Isn't that handled by the VoIP provider automatically to manage their own costs given that they have a set of charges published? I would have thought that was only relevant if you managed your own VoIP network with multiple connection points into the PTSN at various points.
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Interesting, I thought 0844 was just an extension of 0845, i.e. charged at local rate. Our surgery switched to it a while ago and was very keen to point out that this provided local rate calls to the surgery from wherever you were. [...]
They were probably keen to point that out because it's about the only direct benefit to patients! Some surgeries are being criticised for using 0844, still putting people on hold for long times and banking the revenue-share. This penalises the least healthy (often the poorest) members of the community disproportionately!
0844 is not usually included in telco "all calls" packages, so is a worse deal than an 01, 02 or 03 number for callers. I wouldn't use it for anything aimed at home users and I would never put people on hold-before-answer on 07 or 08 numbers. I think there's a strong argument that hold-before-answer should be banned on 07 and 08.
What do you mean by VoIP routing? [...]
Sending calls to my 08 number direct to my SIP URL, rather than via my 01934->SIP converter. Sorry if I abused the jargon.
Regards,
MJ Ray wrote:
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Interesting, I thought 0844 was just an extension of 0845, i.e. charged at local rate.
As I recall, 0845 was too inflexible, and it didn't allow ISPs to do things like charge 1p/min for Internet access. I'm not sure what the highest charge that can be applied to an 0844 number is, although from mobiles it is probably some silly cost.
Note that 0844/0845 numbers are not affected by the upcoming changes.
0844 is not usually included in telco "all calls" packages, so is a worse deal than an 01, 02 or 03 number for callers.
I think this is the main problem with them, particularly on mobiles (where the cost of non-inclusive minutes is often very high). But then an 0800 call will likely cost at least 10p/min from a mobile.
As always, there are some laudible uses for 0844/0845/0870, as well as placed where they are just a rip-off. Where a "service" is offered off the back of a telephone number the service provider ought to be able to charge more-or-less anything they like, but it should (a) be transparent (which I think should mean different prefixes for different charges, maybe something like 0844-xx-yyyyyy where xx is the pence/min the call costs), (b) not be massively surcharged from non-BT lines (I think for mobiles the maximum surcharge should be the cost for that user on their current tariff to call a landline), and (c) should not be used for anything which is not a "service", ie where something of tangible value is received in return for the call. Charging 10p/min for indirect access telephone calls to some far off country is fair enough, charging 10p/min to sit on hold to speak to your bank is not, and paying 35p/min to make the same call from your mobile is even worse.
All of which is completely off-topic, albeit interestingly so.
Mark Rogers
** MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop [2007-09-17 14:59]:
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Interesting, I thought 0844 was just an extension of 0845, i.e. charged at local rate. Our surgery switched to it a while ago and was very keen to point out that this provided local rate calls to the surgery from wherever you were. [...]
They were probably keen to point that out because it's about the only direct benefit to patients! Some surgeries are being criticised for using 0844, still putting people on hold for long times and banking the revenue-share. This penalises the least healthy (often the poorest) members of the community disproportionately!
Indeed, and to add to the pain the same number was used for the two practices that are part of the same partnership. This means that you have to go through the options to choose which practice you want to talk to even before you get to choice appointments or whatever the other options are! Initially you had no option but to listen to the full message before you could choose as well, and when I timed that it took a full 2 minutes before the phone would even start ringing on the reception desk to make an appointment. This has improved now, so I guess you could argue that they were forcing you to learn the system before allowing the short path. You could also argue they were trying to cover the cots as quickly as possible from call revenue too though.
As luck would have it we now have on line booking for routine appointments, so that saves some hassle :)
<<snip>>
What do you mean by VoIP routing? [...]
Sending calls to my 08 number direct to my SIP URL, rather than via my 01934->SIP converter. Sorry if I abused the jargon.
Ahah, hadn't thought about that. My VoIP number has a full PSTN number local to my area (as in 023 92 000 123 - quite a nice number actually!). It takes a bit of digging in my Wengophone configuration to find that as I don't use the Wengo service itself. I think it has got better in that respect as the project has progressed so I should check for an update - not to mention actually get a desktop machine with Linux configured and working again. I'm struggling with XP at the moment unfortunately, although thankfully using OOo, Firefox and PuTTY to my Linux servers you don't notice too much (well that's what I tell myself!).
One thing I do need to sort out, so I can use the VoIP line for incoming calls, is a better headset configuration. At the moment my headset is plugged into my sound card, so I can't hear the phone ring unless I have it on (hence the number is not published yet). I either need to get a USB adapter (one of those tiny USB sound card things) to plug my headset into; fit a second PCI sound card (which is no good if I'm using my laptop); or get a USB headset. Has anyone tried these USB sound cards? For decent quality and a known brand I like the idea of the Lindy units, but they are much more expensive (that said they have a 2 year warranty and a mute button) and I haven't managed to confirm Linux compatibility. The cheap ones seem likely to work with Linux....
Actually I take that last bit back, the Lindy unit looks to use the Crystal Media CM108 chipset, so should work. I may just splash out a tenner plus and give it a try :) I'm far from being a fan of el cheapo generic hardware. If it has a lesser known brand with a good support site then fine. If it can't advertise the make clearly somewhere I worry about quality!! ** end quote [MJ Ray]
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
One thing I do need to sort out, so I can use the VoIP line for incoming calls, is a better headset configuration. At the moment my headset is plugged into my sound card, so I can't hear the phone ring unless I have it on (hence the number is not published yet). [...]
Why don't you configure the speaker device as the ringer and just use the headset output for calls? Or does your soundcard not distinguish?
[...] Has anyone tried these USB sound cards?
I'm currently using a yealink. It's telephone quality at best, so if too many of my contacts upgrade to VoIP, I'll want to get something better, so let us know how you get on!
Regards,
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Has anyone tried these USB sound cards? For decent quality and a known brand I like the idea of the Lindy units, but they are much more expensive (that said they have a 2 year warranty and a mute button) and I haven't managed to confirm Linux compatibility. The cheap ones seem likely to work with Linux....
I haven't tried the USB sound cards but the USB variety of plantonics headsets work very well on linux and appear as a separate sound device.
That said given that our whole office phonesystem is now VOIP/asterisk based and despite trying I have yet to find a fully pleasing VOIP softphone for Linux or windows I have given up on softphones for all but emergency use and now have a "proper" desk SIP phone both at my office desk and another extension at my home study, I have fairly expensive (£90) Aastra sip phones which are nothing less than excellent but I hear that the cheaper Grandstream or linksys units are more than workable.
For me my primary interface to my clients is still via phone and I need it to work perfectly and I found that a softphone was no substitute for a "real" phone on my desk..YMMV of course
** Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk [2007-09-18 01:29]:
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
Has anyone tried these USB sound cards? For decent quality and a known brand I like the idea of the Lindy units, but they are much more expensive (that said they have a 2 year warranty and a mute button) and I haven't managed to confirm Linux compatibility. The cheap ones seem likely to work with Linux....
I haven't tried the USB sound cards but the USB variety of plantonics headsets work very well on linux and appear as a separate sound device.
That said given that our whole office phonesystem is now VOIP/asterisk based and despite trying I have yet to find a fully pleasing VOIP softphone for Linux or windows I have given up on softphones for all but emergency use and now have a "proper" desk SIP phone both at my office desk and another extension at my home study, I have fairly expensive (£90) Aastra sip phones which are nothing less than excellent but I hear that the cheaper Grandstream or linksys units are more than workable.
For me my primary interface to my clients is still via phone and I need it to work perfectly and I found that a softphone was no substitute for a "real" phone on my desk..YMMV of course
** end quote [Wayne Stallwood]
Yes, I've not been too happy with the convenience of a soft phone, although with better headset this may improve. One thing I've been on the lookout for is a wifi based SIP handset, but every handset you see advertised is a Skype one. I've no idea whether this means the phone is 100% tied to Skype, but I'm assuming so (and questions asked of suppliers and manufacturers that have resulted in either a blank stare that indicates they have no idea what you are talking about, or no email response at all seems to confirm this).
My mileage is actually that handsets for traditional phones leave quite a bit to be desired. I've got 3 different dect cordless phones, and they have all started to suffer battery problems after a surprisingly short space of time. That's 3 different sets, the first was abandoned due to reduced range after a couple of years (Panasonic, and even with new batteries). The replacement BT is also having problems now, and the caller id is a bit hit and miss too. Both these two are on my home line and use nimh batteries that are fully discharged before re-charging. The business line has another Panasonic with li-ion batteries and if it has been out of the charger for a few hours and I want to listen to the answerphone messages it can't manage it, I have to get the other out of the charged to manage that - again always fully discharged.
My hard wired handset on the business line is a Plantronics unit with a headset attached. The volume on the headset is very poor and I have it at maximum to be able to use it (I'd like it a bit louder). I also find that the in-line connector needs a wiggle every now and then to get anything out of it. I really must try to sort out cleaning the connections.
Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
[...] a wifi based SIP handset, [...]
Shouldn't we be reducing wifi use now? See: Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2944417.ece
[...] I've got 3 different dect cordless phones [...]
Dect phones often interfere with DVB-Satellite reception, which I take as a sign of generally poor equipment. It's also been enough fun talking to people whose cordless phones have turned to white noise mid-sentence that I don't want to inflict any more on the world.
Regards,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:07:08PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Shouldn't we be reducing wifi use now? See: Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2944417.ece
I wouldn't be too concerned about that. As far as I understand it someone in the German "Ministerium fuer Strahlenschutz" (Ministry of Radiation Protection) did say that: "All evidence indicates that radiation below the legal thresholds is not dangerous. It is nevertheless possible that there still are physical mechanisms which may cause damage."
This potential threat was important enough to recommend not using Wi-Fi, mobile phones, intercom, baby monitors ... They didn't like to give the "all green" just in case new evidence turns up one day. No idea why they refrain from recommending not to watch TV as this may cause tremendous brain damage. :-)
Luzie
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 15:07 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Shouldn't we be reducing wifi use now? See: Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2944417.ece
Well I hope anyone even slightly concerned about that doesn't own or use a Mobile phone...stand too close to their microwave...drive near any TV transmitters or mobile masts..Use DECT phones or work in a building that uses them. All of the above will result in the same or similar levels of exposure. The only difference I guess being the exposure time. But honestly given the ERP of 802.11G kit then I think at the point we are worrying about these levels we need to address mobile phones at least.
Tin Foil suits are available for all sizes at isle 3 :)
Dect phones often interfere with DVB-Satellite reception, which I take as a sign of generally poor equipment. It's also been enough fun talking to people whose cordless phones have turned to white noise mid-sentence that I don't want to inflict any more on the world.
Given that they don't interfere with much else why is it not the DVB Satellite receiver that is generally poor equipment ? Anything with a highly directional antenna that is picking up interference from a low power transmitter any further away that lying on top of it and not within the antennas focus has serious issues with the sensitivity/selectivity/screening of it's receiver IMO.
P.S. if you are talking to someone on a cordless and the signal turns to white noise then they are using an analogue one not a DECT phone. DECT phones sound like mobile phones in bad signal areas (robotic chopped up sound followed by disconnection)
Regards Wayne
Wayne Stallwood ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 15:07 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2944417.ece
Well I hope anyone even slightly concerned about that doesn't own or use a Mobile phone...stand too close to their microwave...drive near any TV transmitters or mobile masts..Use DECT phones or work in a building that uses them. [...]
The only ones of those I do are use a mobile phone sometimes and travel near masts, but then I use a hands-free kit to keep the transmitter away from my head. I have sod-all control over the siting of masts, they're not generally announced and I can't avoid them all. My house is in a mobile shadow, so the phone is usually off with its number diverted when I'm at home.
However, the differences of WiFi are that it's nearly always on and it's digital, whereas the ERP limits were set with analogue signals in mind, weren't they?
Dect phones often interfere with DVB-Satellite reception, which I take as a sign of generally poor equipment. It's also been enough fun talking to people whose cordless phones have turned to white noise mid-sentence that I don't want to inflict any more on the world.
Given that they don't interfere with much else why is it not the DVB Satellite receiver that is generally poor equipment ? Anything with a highly directional antenna that is picking up interference from a low power transmitter any further away that lying on top of it and not within the antennas focus has serious issues with the sensitivity/selectivity/screening of it's receiver IMO.
I doubt it's a poor receiver equipment problem because it's been reported with several receivers. A DVB Satellite receiver has to be pretty sensitive because it's receiving from a transmitter the size of a Fiesta parked thousands of kilometres above the equator. DECT phones seem to interfere with the signal on the cable between antenna and receiver in normal operation.
P.S. if you are talking to someone on a cordless and the signal turns to white noise then they are using an analogue one not a DECT phone. [...]
No, they were using DECT phones, but many DECT phones seem to start transmitting white noise as the battery fails. Maybe the handset could be smarter and shut off, but what sort of system design lets the handset transmit loud white noise in a common failure situation and then passes it to the telephone system, deafening the other caller?
Hope that explains,
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:45 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
Yes, I've not been too happy with the convenience of a soft phone, although with better headset this may improve. One thing I've been on the lookout for is a wifi based SIP handset, but every handset you see advertised is a Skype one. I've no idea whether this means the phone is 100% tied to Skype, but I'm assuming so (and questions asked of suppliers and manufacturers that have resulted in either a blank stare that indicates they have no idea what you are talking about, or no email response at all seems to confirm this).
Linksys and a few others at digium.co.uk but my experience with the ones I tried was not that great. If you only want it for use at your base and not roaming on other peoples wifi (they don't work so well with paid for hot spots anyway and often SIP requires firewall tweakery before it works anyway so this limits use on public wifi) I'd look towards a SIP/Dect phone rather than a SIP/Wifi one.
Siemens Gigaset C460IP available at digium.co.uk for £69+VAT , tis dual mode SIP and POTS. We have one of those in our workshop and it is fine (apart from lacking dedicated transfer buttons etc for asterisk but that won't affect you) One particularly nice thing about it is that even in the single handset pack the charger and base station are separate units so you don't have to place the phone on charge where the phone line and network point is.
Oh and batteries on the Gigaset are standard nimh AAA batteries so replacement is cheap if/when they do fail.
My hard wired handset on the business line is a Plantronics unit with a headset attached. The volume on the headset is very poor and I have it at maximum to be able to use it (I'd like it a bit louder). I also find that the in-line connector needs a wiggle every now and then to get anything out of it. I really must try to sort out cleaning the connections.
Most plantronics headsets are designed to plug into a dedicated headset port. Is this what you have or do you have one of those funny loopthrough things on the telephone headset...I have some dedicated plantronics headset amplifiers kicking about somewhere from when we have decommissioned old phone systems, if I can find a working one you are welcome to it.
Paul,
"Has anyone tried these USB sound cards?"
No, but one arrived, tonight, so i'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers, Rob.
-
Chris G -
James Freer -
Luzie U. Wingen -
Mark Rogers -
MJ Ray -
Paul Tansom -
Rob Page -
ted.harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Wayne Stallwood