|
Posted by Digital Larry on April 14, 2008, 3:27 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I currently have an AT&T 5840 answering machine base station for
wireless handsets. The phones work fine, but the answering machine is
either defective or was bad from the start. It seems that it worked
OK initially, but if it degraded gradually I didn't notice.
#1 Most recorded messages are almost unintelligible, as if 4 bits were
used to encode the audio, and I'm not talking u-law either.
#2 The announcements from the machine itself are probably 12 dB louder
than any of the messages, so, you get SUNDAY! 3:40 PM! muffle muffle
unintelligible blp bzzt ccckkk.... and if you try to turn it up to
hear the actual message, your head gets blown off when Mr. Announcer
comes back on.
Here's what I would LOVE to see:
1) Volume equalization between announcements and recordings (either
settable, or use a compressor on the messages so the level is more
consistent).
2) Allow me to turn the announcements OFF, so I can just scan the
messages. Utlimately it is not that critical WHEN the message came
in.
3) Allow me to move a message to a different inbox.
4) Keep the caller ID tag with the message so that I know where the
call came from when I am listening to it.
5) Allow certain phone #'s to automatically route to one inbox or the
other. Our outgoing messages tells people to press "2" to leave us a
number so that friends are not mixed in with telemarketers etc. but
some of them consistently ignore this.
I have done the basics Google search, usenet, CNET, etc. but there
doesn't seem to be much interest in answering machines as far as
cutting edge features etc. All the things I'm looking for seem
possible.
Am I dreaming?
The main thing I don't want to do is go buy another setup that has the
exact same problem as my AT&T unit - namely the messages are
unintelligible even though using the phone has no such issue.
|
 
| |
Posted by Robert Bonomi on April 14, 2008, 11:03 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>Here's what I would LOVE to see:
>
>The main thing I don't want to do is go buy another setup that has the
>exact same problem as my AT&T unit - namely the messages are
>unintelligible even though using the phone has no such issue.
>
One way to get _all_ the features you're looking for is to use Asterix (PBX
and voicemail software freeware), on a Linux-based PC. Doesn't need a lot
of CPU power, and line cards are quite inexpensive.
This can be really inexpensive if you (a) roll your own, and (b) have an old
PC laying around (who doesn't? :) to commit to it. For more money, you can
probably buy something 'off the shelf' from people who make a business of
delivering pre-built solutions around Asterix.
The only thing that might get a little tricky is using a single base-station
with multiple wireless sets behind it. However, using several single-station
sets on different extensions behind the Asterix PBX is no problem.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Robert, I'm surprised to see your comment about line cards: I'd _love_
to have a voice-mail and mini-PBX for my business, but the only
Asterisk line cards I've priced were in the $650 range for a quad
FXO/FXS card, so please tell us what prices you've seen. Even the dual
FXS/FXO TDM411E card on Digium's website (http://www.asterisk.org/)
lists for $544.39.
I've also been told that old machines don't cut it, and that a Pentium
3 or better and 512MB ram is the minimum hardware. Have you used
something older than that?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
|
Posted by Digital Larry on April 17, 2008, 3:36 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> One way to get _all_ the features you're looking for is to use Asterix (PBX
> and voicemail software freeware), on a Linux-based PC. Doesn't need a lot
> of CPU power, and line cards are quite inexpensive.
>
...
>
> The only thing that might get a little tricky is using a single base-station
> with multiple wireless sets behind it. However, using several single-station
> sets on different extensions behind the Asterix PBX is no problem.
Robert, can you please elaborate on why this would be an issue? I
have not had the time to dig into Asterix specs to understand what it
could be.
Here's another off the wall idea - I've been using a Nokia N810
Internet tablet as part of something I'm doing for work. This looks
like it could make a cool wireless thin client for such an answering
machine - y'know you'd be able to give it a fairly rich UI and use it
anywhere in the house. Anyone done something like this?
Thanks, DL
|
|
Posted by Robert Bonomi on April 17, 2008, 8:40 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >On Apr 14, 8:03 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>> One way to get _all_ the features you're looking for is to use Asterix (PBX
>> and voicemail software freeware), on a Linux-based PC. Doesn't need a lot
>> of CPU power, and line cards are quite inexpensive.
>>
>...
>>
>> The only thing that might get a little tricky is using a single base-station
>> with multiple wireless sets behind it. However, using several single-station
>> sets on different extensions behind the Asterix PBX is no problem.
>
>Robert, can you please elaborate on why this would be an issue? I
>have not had the time to dig into Asterix specs to understand what it
>could be.
I say again "MIGHT", not necessarily "will". Of course, it depends on exactly
what you're trying to do.
But, for example, If the wireless rig is 'single line', with multiple sets,
and one set is checking voice-mail messages, that ties up _the_ line 'out' to
the Asterix system (where the voice-mail resides), so (a) an incoming call
would go directly to voice mail, and (b) no other wireless set could make an
outgoing call at that time.
With multiple base stations (on separate Asterix extensions), one wireless set
can be checking voice mail -while- another is making an outgoing call.
The 'limited' smarts in a single multi-handset base can prevent the greater
smarts in the Asterix from being accessible to all stations at all times.
>Here's another off the wall idea - I've been using a Nokia N810
>Internet tablet as part of something I'm doing for work. This looks
>like it could make a cool wireless thin client for such an answering
>machine - y'know you'd be able to give it a fairly rich UI and use it
>anywhere in the house. Anyone done something like this?
I'm sure _somebody_ has. <grin>
You're encouraged to think a bit _further_ outside the box -- Asterix will
function as a VoIP _server_, and you could use it over a secure link from
_any_ wi-fi access-point. Not just 'in the house'. Take your 'home' dial-
tone with you, as well as your voice-mail, etc.
|
|
Posted by Digital Larry on April 18, 2008, 2:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
an actual PBX type installation, after all I'm just trying to replace
my cheapo answering machine with something that works properly. I
think the Asterisk thing is going to be beyond my means what with the
cost of the Digium card. However I did find this:
http://www.vocpsystem.com/index.php?mode=component
VOCP Linux project for answering machine based on voice modem, also
remote client VOCPWeb (presumably for use within the network but you
could probably VPN to it and also get messages remotely).
Thx,
DL
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'll chime in with this thought: compared to the value of your time,
Asterisk is probably a great buy: anything you can do to filter the
never-ending parade of hucksters, bill collectors, and politicians is
cheap at twice the price. Asterisk and similar software is worth
having because it returns control of _our_ telephone lines to _us_.
I think (and you heard it here first) that within the next decade it
will be routine to have an "answering machine" which is actually a
call screener. Those with the right access code will be put through,
those without will get the recorder or just a disconnection.
We've all been part of a cultural shift that has rewarded our desire
to keep in touch with our friends with an obligation to manage the
time and schedules of total strangers: after all, if you want to get
in touch with me, I think that it's _your_ job to do so, not mine. An
answering machine, however, puts that job on _my_ head, and I'm tired
of the weight.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | from answering machine to CD [Telecom] | April 29, 2008, 4:34 pm |
| Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine | July 28, 2005, 2:51 am |
| Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine | July 29, 2005, 4:43 am |
| Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine | July 30, 2005, 12:52 am |
| Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine | August 1, 2005, 11:47 am |
| Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine | August 2, 2005, 7:48 am |
| VOIP and PSTN Many Line to Single Handset Answering Machine; Fax | June 28, 2005, 3:03 am |
| IE Changes Due: What You Can Expect | April 14, 2006, 3:37 pm |
| What to Expect Next in Telcoland | August 17, 2006, 1:06 pm |
| 'Cramming' Hits Consumers When They Least Expect It | October 16, 2005, 9:08 pm |
|
|
![Too much to expect from an answering machine? [Telecom]](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map