Fax: Sangoma FAXstation
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Is 600 about what you are doing now? I have no good idea of how to estimate the time necessary for fax reception.
Well the last time I did a study, we were receiving about 700 pages a day. In my own tests, sending or receiving on that machine took an average of 1 min per page. So working at 600 mins a day was a way to ensure I wasn't over selling our usage.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Is this for T.38 or for them accepting the faxes?
T.38 is on the normal SIP line, you don't have something special for that.
My question is really - are they accepting the faxes on your behalf, or are they forward the fax call onto you, and you terminate the call and process the fax yourself?
I'm assuming they are terminating the call at that price point.They accept on your behalf. There is no FoIP.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Most faxes that come in need to be uploaded to our EHR.
Current process
Fax comes in saved to network share
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.If the faxes are in email,
Email in fax
User save file to network/local location
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.Saving to email adds a step.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Most faxes that come in need to be uploaded to our EHR.
Current process
Fax comes in saved to network share
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.If the faxes are in email,
Email in fax
User save file to network/local location
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.Saving to email adds a step.
The Sangoma uses email in the middle. It's important to differentiate something used in the middle of the process with the thing exposed to the end users.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
Is this for T.38 or for them accepting the faxes?
T.38 is on the normal SIP line, you don't have something special for that.
My question is really - are they accepting the faxes on your behalf, or are they forward the fax call onto you, and you terminate the call and process the fax yourself?
I'm assuming they are terminating the call at that price point.They accept on your behalf. There is no FoIP.
So in this case we would need several things - a way to get the faxes out of their system and in ours to allow the same or better workflow for processing faxes.
And,
We'd need a way to send faxes. Sure we could use the email gateway service, but most users wouldn't find it easier or more convenient than the current bellying up to a machine, load paper and hit send.And none of that accounts for the fact that it's 5x the cost.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Most faxes that come in need to be uploaded to our EHR.
Current process
Fax comes in saved to network share
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.If the faxes are in email,
Email in fax
User save file to network/local location
User opens EHR, clicks upload button, locates document click go.Saving to email adds a step.
The Sangoma uses email in the middle. It's important to differentiate something used in the middle of the process with the thing exposed to the end users.
Whoops I wrote that second part wrong.. It should have been... Fax in email.. .not email in fax.. the users would be recieving the faxes via email instead of faxing.. which as mentioned would be adding a step to the process they don't currently have to deal with.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
So in this case we would need several things - a way to get the faxes out of their system and in ours to allow the same or better workflow for processing faxes.
Where their system is your email. And that system is a trivially simple script.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
Yes, if the cost is that much higher.
What service are you using now?
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
We'd need a way to send faxes. Sure we could use the email gateway service, but most users wouldn't find it easier or more convenient than the current bellying up to a machine, load paper and hit send.
Boy that sounds like a lot of work. Print, get up, walk, remember number, stand around, make call to verify fax is working and received, deal with secure paper to be destroyed, go back to desk.
Email
Which of those sounds like more work?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
Yes, if the cost is that much higher.
What service are you using now?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Today we have two POTS lines from Cox at $35/ea for a total of $70. The mopiers have built in fax machines, they answer the calls and dump the faxes into the network share.
I'm not using any fax service today.
-
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
Yes, if the cost is that much higher.
What service are you using now?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Today we have two POTS lines from Cox at $35/ea for a total of $70. The mopiers have built in fax machines, they answer the calls and dump the faxes into the network share.
I'm not using any fax service today.
Oh right, and no cost on the fax lines? It's unlimited minutes beyond the base cost?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
We'd need a way to send faxes. Sure we could use the email gateway service, but most users wouldn't find it easier or more convenient than the current bellying up to a machine, load paper and hit send.
Boy that sounds like a lot of work. Print, get up, walk, remember number, stand around, make call to verify fax is working and received, deal with secure paper to be destroyed, go back to desk.
Email
Which of those sounds like more work?
While those are great in principal - no one does that.
And as I mentioned, we are faxing less than 100 pages a day, and really it's probably more like 100 pages a week.
Dealing with digital to paper to digital or even digital to digital - it's all a pain in the ass.
Plus in our case, most of the things being faxes are already in paper form. -
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
Yes, if the cost is that much higher.
What service are you using now?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Today we have two POTS lines from Cox at $35/ea for a total of $70. The mopiers have built in fax machines, they answer the calls and dump the faxes into the network share.
I'm not using any fax service today.
Oh right, and no cost on the fax lines? It's unlimited minutes beyond the base cost?
Correct.
That's why i don't understand these faxing solutions. If the solution costs more than $40-50 a month, they are a complete rip. You can get a POTS line for around that with unlimited incoming and outgoing, and then you can buy a fax server for around $500 (or setup a FreePBX box with an attached modem). Depending on your volume, you could see an ROI in the first year. -
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@dashrender said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
in your email
Email would just be a file server in that case. What do you have now, how do the files get to your NAS?
As a reminder - having the faxes go to email would be an extra step for those that process our faxes that isn't needed 95% of the time.
Why would that be an extra step? You just have a script that pops them into the NAS.
I'm completely unfamiliar with that - OK so that gets rid of that.
But the cost is still 5x greater.
Yes, if the cost is that much higher.
What service are you using now?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Today we have two POTS lines from Cox at $35/ea for a total of $70. The mopiers have built in fax machines, they answer the calls and dump the faxes into the network share.
I'm not using any fax service today.
Oh right, and no cost on the fax lines? It's unlimited minutes beyond the base cost?
Correct.
That's why i don't understand these faxing solutions. If the solution costs more than $40-50 a month, they are a complete rip. You can get a POTS line for around that with unlimited incoming and outgoing, and then you can buy a fax server for around $500 (or setup a FreePBX box with an attached modem). Depending on your volume, you could see an ROI in the first year.Well, there are lots of assumptions that might be pretty likely, but don't always work.
Some reasons why these remain important:
- Not every market has reliable POTS service. Rochester does not. Faxes are pretty unreliable there, even on POTS.
- POTS lines are not portable. What if you want your company to handle multiple markets or be flexible in physical location?
- What if you have a normal volume of faxes? You get an absurd number, most people only get a small amount. Paying by the minute or getting a different service might make that very cheap. A lot of people could make due with just a few dollars of pay by the minute faxes a month.
- Just because voip.ms makes their unlimited "meant for residential" doesn't mean that everyone does. Our commercial lines at NTG are unlimited incoming and handle fax. So we have 400$ your capacity at a fraction of your cost today.
- Not everyone wants to deal with paper and paper processes. Especially if their staff are not physically in an office.
- People might need to fax from home, not just the office.
- Not everyone owns fax machines. So that's added cost.
- Not everyone uses local storage in the office.
- You have to figure the costs of paper, waiting on faxes and such into the total cost.
-
@scottalanmiller but the points @Dashrender are referencing are specific to his case. He has never stated otherwise.
-
@jaredbusch said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller but the points @Dashrender are referencing are specific to his case. He has never stated otherwise.
I was responding to him saying that he didn't understand these solutions. As if they had no reason to exist.
-
@scottalanmiller What solution does NTG use for faxing?
-
@fateknollogee said in Fax: Sangoma FAXstation:
@scottalanmiller What solution does NTG use for faxing?
Nothing, we just discussed it like two days ago, we have literally zero faxing needs and have no way to send a traditional fax. But as we only need to do it once a year or so, we normally can find some way to do it easily - just emailing something to @Dashrender to fax, for example.
Being a tech firm, faxing really has no reason to come up.
