POTS line replacement
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also have a call into our Security/Fire Alarm company on the costs of a replacement alarm system is and if it can work over cellular. We will then see which will have the best ROI depending on years of service.
There is no need to see, there's no competition. Being with AT&T will cost you a fortune, no ifs ands or butts. And that's just on the cost of a basic system, not even talking about all the modern (meaning post 1999) features that everyone is assumed to just have that you've been missing all these decades.
-
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also have a call into our Security/Fire Alarm company on the costs of a replacement alarm system is and if it can work over cellular. We will then see which will have the best ROI depending on years of service.
It's highly unlikely that you need to replace the alarm system, as most commercial security systems can be expanded with different modules. Moving from POTS to IP or cellular is very common.
It's also very possible that your alarm system will not work over your AT&T ATA (POTS emulation). Some alarm systems don't use the same signaling as a modem or fax would.
Right, if POTS is a REQUIREMENT, that means that nothing else should work or else it was a false requirement (e.g. not a requirement at all.) If it requires POTS, that means it is using artefacts of the POTS system and not the phone line itself to do its job (this is common, not weird) such as detecting voltage on the line to determine if the line is active. A POTS replacement system generates that voltage locally and the system thinks it is up even if it is not.
-
@gjacobse said in POTS line replacement:
I don't know about other ATAs... but the carriers here seem to love to update / change the protocols and burn us on faxes..
Faxes are basically free. If you are using ATAs or other antiquated fall back systems to do fax (or really, faxing at all) the vendors know you have no IT oversight in charge or are totally screwed and over a barrel. That means, guaranteed, that providing a good service or a good price has NO value to you as a customer. By needing that kind of stuff, you are informing the vendors that you are absolutely willing to pay through the nose because there are free, secure, easier ways that replaced faxing decades ago. If you could move off of faxing, obviously you would. So there's something causing you to be stuck. So obviously they are going to charge a LOT and put zero effort into making it work. And if that's not good enough for their customers, they are free to not use fax. That they continue to use fax means, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the cost and complexity of fax is still determined to be a good value by whoever is the decision maker.
-
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@gjacobse said in POTS line replacement:
I don't know about other ATAs... but the carriers here seem to love to update / change the protocols and burn us on faxes..
Faxes are basically free. If you are using ATAs or other antiquated fall back systems to do fax (or really, faxing at all) the vendors know you have no IT oversight in charge or are totally screwed and over a barrel. That means, guaranteed, that providing a good service or a good price has NO value to you as a customer. By needing that kind of stuff, you are informing the vendors that you are absolutely willing to pay through the nose because there are free, secure, easier ways that replaced faxing decades ago. If you could move off of faxing, obviously you would. So there's something causing you to be stuck. So obviously they are going to charge a LOT and put zero effort into making it work. And if that's not good enough for their customers, they are free to not use fax. That they continue to use fax means, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the cost and complexity of fax is still determined to be a good value by whoever is the decision maker.
We are dealing with large hospitals and pharma - so sometimes they dictate the technology. We have etherFax deployed and are adding on to it,.. but as a partner to the local university hospital.. we do what we must... We would rather cut all faxes, and the new office space doesn't have a single POTS line or jack in the space.
-
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also have a call into our Security/Fire Alarm company on the costs of a replacement alarm system is and if it can work over cellular. We will then see which will have the best ROI depending on years of service.
It's highly unlikely that you need to replace the alarm system, as most commercial security systems can be expanded with different modules. Moving from POTS to IP or cellular is very common.
It's also very possible that your alarm system will not work over your AT&T ATA (POTS emulation). Some alarm systems don't use the same signaling as a modem or fax would.
Right, if POTS is a REQUIREMENT, that means that nothing else should work or else it was a false requirement (e.g. not a requirement at all.) If it requires POTS, that means it is using artefacts of the POTS system and not the phone line itself to do its job (this is common, not weird) such as detecting voltage on the line to determine if the line is active. A POTS replacement system generates that voltage locally and the system thinks it is up even if it is not.
There is actually more to it than that. But I do not believe that POTS is a requirement.
The one thing to keep in mind though is that fire alarms are regulated by code. NFPA 72 for example. So it's not your typical IT communication problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
Basically they connect to our network and install their "Phone for Business - Advanced device" (I'm guessing just a suped up ATA device) which will allows up to 8 analog that connect to a 66 Block.
So it's just... every day VOIP?
Not likely. Likely some weird VoIP.
-
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
fire alarms are regulated by code. NFPA 72 for example.
More than just NFPA 72, but 72 is a good place to start.
The NFPA website is a good place to start.
You can find information like this FAQ pdf there.
- Can non‐traditional telephone service be used with a digital alarm communicator
system?
Yes, if the service is provided through a managed facilities‐based voice network (MFVN).
NFPA 72 addresses several means of transmitting alarm and other signals from a fire alarm system at a protected premise to a supervising station. The most widely used means is a digital alarm communicator system. These systems use a digital alarm communicator transmitter (DACT) connected through two transmission channels. The Code requires the primary channel to be a telephone line. The secondary channel can be a second telephone line, or one of 6 other transmission means.
With respect to the telephone line(s), the Code requires in 26.6.3.2.1.1 that the DACT be connected to the public switched telephone network upstream of any private telephone system at the protected premise. It also requires that the connection be to a loop start telephone circuit. Historically, this meant connection to the copper conductors of a plain old telephone system (POTS) traditionally provided by the telephone company. In recent years, providers of telephone service other than the traditional POTS service have become more common. The 2010 edition of the Code includes revisions to address the use of these non‐traditional types of telephone service.
The 2010 edition of NFPA 72 includes the following revised the definition of a public switched telephone network and a new definition of managed facilities‐based voice
networks:- Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). An assembly of communications equipment and telephone service providers that utilize managed facilities‐based voice networks (MFVN) to provide the general public with the ability to establish communications channels via discrete dialing codes.
- Managed Facilities‐Based Voice Network (MFVN). A physical facilities‐based network capable of transmitting real time signals with formats unchanged that is managed, operated, and maintained by the service provider to ensure service quality and reliability from the subscriber location to public switched telephone network (PSTN) interconnection points or other MFVN peer networks.
The Code contains extensive explanatory annex information related to what is expected of a MFVN. It is important to recognize that telephone service that that is not provided through a physical facilities‐based network would not be covered under this definition. It is also important to understand that the telephone service provider’s communications equipment is expected to provide 8 hours of standby power for equipment installed on the premises or located in the field. This is in contrast to the 24 hours of secondary power required for the fire alarm system itself, including the DACT.
- Can non‐traditional telephone service be used with a digital alarm communicator
-
Thanks for all the information
We do have VOIP for our normal phone system and I am definitely looking for a replacement for our fax line.
This is one of those times where IT is not the final say regarding equipment. Now that costs are way out of whack, my recommendations are finally being heard. Funny how that works
Our fire system is over 14+ years old and at this time there are no modules available for cellular. I checked myself on this a few months ago but I am harping on our Security service guy to look deeper in case I missed something. We investigated that when Century Link dumped all copper lines in our area last year on a dime. That forced us to go AT&T within two weeks.
-
@JaredBusch said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
Basically they connect to our network and install their "Phone for Business - Advanced device" (I'm guessing just a suped up ATA device) which will allows up to 8 analog that connect to a 66 Block.
You are guessing correctly. It is just a fancy ATA.
Because it is AT&T, I would assume that they are using T1 protocol delivered over IPv4/IPv6 or something similar.We use to have T1s split out by an MSDT (that is what the old old phone company called them) for 24 lines that worked fine for the alarm system. If it is the same but cut down to 8 then it should work. I just hate the fact they want to charge $500 for this damn device.
-
@JaredBusch said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also kept one other POTS line for our main fax line also (not my call).
So sorry. Look into http://faxback.com
This is the service that Skyetel uses under the hood for their HTTPS based ATA fax device. If you already have Skyetel service, then just use it there.We do have one fax line through our VOIP service but is does have it's issues. I noticed others here have talked about their fax service so I am going to check that out this week.
-
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
Our POTS line pricing was bumped again
Everything that involves POTS will increase in price exponentially as the companies are trying to get rid of their copper installations.
That will include ATAs as well as they will become more and more legacy, less and less common and more expensive to support.
So I believe the best option is to move away completely from POTS to something current as soon as possible - instead of trying to limp along another year.
Agreed. We are seeing all this now. I saw it earlier, especially when I believe @JaredBusch posted about the new FCC regulations about getting rid of POTS a year or so ago.
-
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
Our POTS line pricing was bumped again and with a call to AT&T we found out that there as a "newish" service AT&T Phone for Business Advanced. This service is suppose to be the replacement for specialty analog lines like Security/Fire Systems, elevators and such. The cost with 3-5 lines is significantly cheaper than our current bill.
It POTS is a requirement, then obviously this isn't an option for you. If this is an option (to leave POTS), why not leave to a business class modern phone system?
First rule of phones: rule out your local infrastructure provider as a potential candidate. It's the one company it is never safe to use.
I was pushed to the local infrastructure company. No one else will provide POTS to our building. CenturyLink (aka Lumous) called one day last year ans basically said bye-bye we're done in a few weeks, figure it out.
I can't convince higher ups to force clients to scan to PDF and then secure email files. Freaking annoying.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
I was pushed to the local infrastructure company. No one else will provide POTS to our building.
That's by definition. POTS can only be provided by the local infrastructure company. Violating the first rule of telephony. Whoever pushed you there made all of the decisions, all. There's no "shop around", there's no "evaluate needs", it's just "do this thing, but I'll tell it to you in a round about way."
POTS is never an appropriate answer to business (or home) telephony. It had a time and place, but that ended decades ago. And that's before we even talk about it as a legacy technology that should be ruled out on tech grounds. Then comes the financial discussion and why businesses would never entertain POTS because of the cost and lack of appropriateness to profits. There's no angle where POTS should be allowed into a list for consideration.
I understand, someone high up simply made the decision end to end and that's it. But it wasn't a business decision, it was an emotional one (or worse) to satisfy something that doesn't make sense in a business setting.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
CenturyLink (aka Lumous) called one day last year ans basically said bye-bye we're done in a few weeks, figure it out.
Yup, ask the decision makers what they want, because having it simply go away one day was definitely accepted when choosing a dead end ancient technology. They had to know this was coming decades ago when using POTS over business phones (VOIP today) was chosen. So ask them what they want(ed) you to do.
-
@gjacobse said in POTS line replacement:
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@gjacobse said in POTS line replacement:
I don't know about other ATAs... but the carriers here seem to love to update / change the protocols and burn us on faxes..
Faxes are basically free. If you are using ATAs or other antiquated fall back systems to do fax (or really, faxing at all) the vendors know you have no IT oversight in charge or are totally screwed and over a barrel. That means, guaranteed, that providing a good service or a good price has NO value to you as a customer. By needing that kind of stuff, you are informing the vendors that you are absolutely willing to pay through the nose because there are free, secure, easier ways that replaced faxing decades ago. If you could move off of faxing, obviously you would. So there's something causing you to be stuck. So obviously they are going to charge a LOT and put zero effort into making it work. And if that's not good enough for their customers, they are free to not use fax. That they continue to use fax means, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the cost and complexity of fax is still determined to be a good value by whoever is the decision maker.
We are dealing with large hospitals and pharma - so sometimes they dictate the technology. We have etherFax deployed and are adding on to it,.. but as a partner to the local university hospital.. we do what we must... We would rather cut all faxes, and the new office space doesn't have a single POTS line or jack in the space.
None of that addresses the issue of doing faxing wrong. Do faxing in a smart way and you fix the issue. What your customers or vendors demand is unrelated to HOW you do your faxing.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
This is one of those times where IT is not the final say regarding equipment. Now that costs are way out of whack, my recommendations are finally being heard. Funny how that works
No, this just means that the IT department is not the head of IT. Whoever makes the decision IS IT, just maybe unwilling to be assigned to a department of that name.
I guarantee costs have been way out of whack for a VERY long time. Just no one was willing to admit it.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@JaredBusch said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
Basically they connect to our network and install their "Phone for Business - Advanced device" (I'm guessing just a suped up ATA device) which will allows up to 8 analog that connect to a 66 Block.
You are guessing correctly. It is just a fancy ATA.
Because it is AT&T, I would assume that they are using T1 protocol delivered over IPv4/IPv6 or something similar.We use to have T1s split out by an MSDT (that is what the old old phone company called them) for 24 lines that worked fine for the alarm system. If it is the same but cut down to 8 then it should work. I just hate the fact they want to charge $500 for this damn device.
Don't hate it. Think of it as a tax or fine for making an intentionally bad business decision long ago - and sticking to it no matter how clearly bad it was. From an IT perspective, this stuff is awesome. It makes it crystal clear how not listening to IT has screwed the company and why making emotional instead of business, decisions is always bad.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@JaredBusch said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also kept one other POTS line for our main fax line also (not my call).
So sorry. Look into http://faxback.com
This is the service that Skyetel uses under the hood for their HTTPS based ATA fax device. If you already have Skyetel service, then just use it there.We do have one fax line through our VOIP service but is does have it's issues. I noticed others here have talked about their fax service so I am going to check that out this week.
A "line" or a service? Faxing should really always be a service, never a line. Don't try to terminate something doing fax to legacy equipment, that will always be a problem. If you have a fax service, you'll never have issues. If you try to avoid that and shoehorn modern fax into legacy gear, it'll always be flaky, expensive, and a pain in the ass.
-
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also have a call into our Security/Fire Alarm company on the costs of a replacement alarm system is and if it can work over cellular. We will then see which will have the best ROI depending on years of service.
It's highly unlikely that you need to replace the alarm system, as most commercial security systems can be expanded with different modules. Moving from POTS to IP or cellular is very common.
It's also very possible that your alarm system will not work over your AT&T ATA (POTS emulation). Some alarm systems don't use the same signaling as a modem or fax would.
I found the manual online and this is the section describing the transmitter itself.
"Digital Alarm Communicator/Transmitter
Two modular phone jacks allow easy connection to telephone lines. Modular jacks are labeled PH1 for Primary Phone Line and PH2 for
Secondary Phone Line. Two telephone line active red LEDs are provided as well as a green Kissoff LED. The integral digital communicator provides the following functions:
• Line Seizure: takes control of the phone lines disconnecting any premises phones
• Off/On Hook: performs on and off-hook status to the phone lines
• Listen for dial tone: 440 Hz tone typical in most networks
• Dialing the Central Station(s) number: default is Touch-Tone
, programmable to rotary
• For tone burst or touchtone type formats: discern proper Ack and Kissoff tone(s). The frequency and time duration of the tone(s)
varies with the transmission format. The control panel will adjust accordingly.
• Communicate in the following formats:
Ademco Contact ID
SIA-DCS-8
SIA-DCS-20"With regards to signaling, this is the only thing that stuck out to me.
-
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Pete-S said in POTS line replacement:
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
We also have a call into our Security/Fire Alarm company on the costs of a replacement alarm system is and if it can work over cellular. We will then see which will have the best ROI depending on years of service.
It's highly unlikely that you need to replace the alarm system, as most commercial security systems can be expanded with different modules. Moving from POTS to IP or cellular is very common.
It's also very possible that your alarm system will not work over your AT&T ATA (POTS emulation). Some alarm systems don't use the same signaling as a modem or fax would.
I found the manual online and this is the section describing the transmitter itself.
"Digital Alarm Communicator/Transmitter
Two modular phone jacks allow easy connection to telephone lines. Modular jacks are labeled PH1 for Primary Phone Line and PH2 for
Secondary Phone Line. Two telephone line active red LEDs are provided as well as a green Kissoff LED. The integral digital communicator provides the following functions:
• Line Seizure: takes control of the phone lines disconnecting any premises phones
• Off/On Hook: performs on and off-hook status to the phone lines
• Listen for dial tone: 440 Hz tone typical in most networks
• Dialing the Central Station(s) number: default is Touch-Tone, programmable to rotary
• For tone burst or touchtone type formats: discern proper Ack and Kissoff tone(s). The frequency and time duration of the tone(s)
varies with the transmission format. The control panel will adjust accordingly.
• Communicate in the following formats:
Ademco Contact ID
SIA-DCS-8
SIA-DCS-20"With regards to signaling, this is the only thing that stuck out to me.
Signalling is typically okay. That can be emulated or encapsulated.
