atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums VOIP Phones & IP PBX VoIP & Cloud Phones, Hosted PBX, General IP Phones LOUD RING needed

Two of the shop areas at the branch we plan to upgrade to Cisco VoIP in a couple of weeks are so noisy they require a ring amplifier. If we could put an analog phone there it would be easy, I see a couple of off the shelf ringers that will hit 120db. Problem is, are there any amplified ringers or bells I can make work with a Cisco 7906 or 7940?

My boss did a site visit and got them all excited about the new phones, so I am on the hook here. Suggestions? :bang:

I think I would worry more about those phones working and doing what you want.

As for ringers, well, you apparently are just starting to realize the many drawbacks of IP phones. I don't have an answer other than connecting them before the system ASSUMING of course that you have POTS lines.

-Hal

Look into a variety of ATAs that are available to install. Depending on whose terminology you use it's an Analog Terminal Adapter or Analog Telephone Adapter.

Here's some more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_telephony_adapter

Here's a few types:
https://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Analog+Telephone+Adapters

I will probably be installing a PAP2 (unlocked) made by Linksys here in the next week or so, but I'm sure your milage will vary depending on the system it's connected to, and personal preferance.

Gee thanks for the constructive input Hal. Everyone who has spent more than two seconds on this forum is aware of your attitude about VoIP. Due to your religious fervor in denouncing all things VoIP as a tool of the Devil, I will not waste my or your time debating it.

Regarding the more useful suggestion to use ATAs. If you reread my post, I indicated we could easily resolve the problem by substituting analog phones. We typically deploy several ATAs on each install for various purposes ranging from paging to modems to the occasional cordless phone in sites that do not yet have wireless access points to support the Cisco 7920/7921s. However, in this case we are looking for a purpose built Cisco compatible Ring Amplifier or another device that can be adapted to the purpose without installing analog phones. If such does not exist, we will probably go with the analog option, but I wanted to explore this possibility first.

I wasn't implying to use analog phones...use the ATA to drive a Stinger or equivalent loud ringer.

AHA!!! I get it, assign the same number to the ATA to get ring! Excellent! I thank you from the bottom of my heart for cutting through my mental fog!

Problem solved! We now return you to your normal programming.

I do the Avaya IP Office, and can just make a WAV file play over paging, or a paging zone in order to signal ringing on any user, or group which is quite handy. I would bet that the Cisco can do a similair thing, if a Cisco guy would consider it.

I think his issue was a high noise environment. Didn't think to ask if a paging system was in the mix...nothing like a Stinger 90 to rattle a few fillings loose.

And I thank you for the compliment, Zippo. My point is that as an end user, why did you feel it necessary to ask this kind of question on an internet forum rather than put the situation in the hands of the vendor who is providing your Cisco equipment? They should be the ones who should be intimately familiar with your operation and providing solutions to problems like what you are asking for.

Perhaps Crisco doesn't have an answer? Perhaps there really is a basis for my dislike for their products?

-Hal

Hal,
I had promised myself I wouldn’t write this, but I find I must. Your unceasing and tendentious attack on voice over IP systems is no doubt satisfying some need of yours, but you are shoveling back the tide with a teaspoon. Take my case; I started in Telecom as an administrator for a large Siemens system in 1996. I first encountered Cisco phones in 2001 when management at my company directed us to explore the possibility of installing Cisco VoIP. I was instrumental at that time in shooting it down due to the manifold problems with QoS, unrealistic savings claims and lost features and limited capabilities. I have somewhat modified my stance after being forced to start installing, using and administering Cisco products.

My current employer had begun a Cisco implementation the year before they hired me and although I was hired primarily for my Siemens training and skills, I had to begin learning the packet switched world. Since I started working in Cisco Call Manager, I have found they are gradually recapitulating the development of traditional PBXs. Each release adds more of the telephony features old line pros like you expect. I have discovered that the QoS issues can be resolved in a properly designed and implemented network. The good old telephony features are gradually being added as the “CGs” are bombarded with requests for them. The promised savings are still mostly illusory and likely always will be, but after dealing with the costs of proprietary systems like Siemens, so what? And finally, VoIP is simply the way telephony is now being done at anything larger than small business. At the enterprise level where I work, to suggest traditional telephony for a new install would be regarded with the same level of shock as would a suggestion to disconnect the internet.

Now regarding my specific issue that prompted my original post; I simply had a mental block. Once the kind posters reminded me, the solution was obvious. May you never have one of these “brain farts”, as they are a source of embarrassment. In any event, the issue is successfully resolved. And by the way, we don’t have a “vendor”, in the sense you mean. We purchase equipment, then configure, install and maintain it ourselves.

I wish you well in your business endeavors, but I find it curous that you spend so much time on the VoIP forum. Sadly, you are in the position of a buggy manufacturer in 1910 railing against “those fume spewing devil wagons”.

Zippo, with all due respect, I don't think that Hal's comments regarding this issue should have been enough to strike a nerve. The problem is that VOIP is being rammed down everyone's throats, even to end users who can't ever benefit from it.

You will be hard pressed to find a corner hardware store, a flower shop, a restaurant or gas station that would ever need an IP system. Remember that small business makes up over 60% of our economy. To expect a mom & pop trinket store to invest $15K in a ten station system when they can buy the same thing for less than a third of that is ludicrous.

Sure, IP has its place and it works well. It's just not for everyone. Loud ringing is not too much to ask of any system. While it's true that many manufacturers are entering the VOIP arena, it is still my opinion that there is little need for a 100% IP system in any application.

I'm sorry that you felt that you were rubbed the wrong way; that's not our intention here. We just have to be realistic a the street level and offer products and services that are affordable to the typical small business owner. Mega corporations can afford to spend three to four times the cost in equipment whether it really works or saves them any money. Small business doesn't have that luxury. I am not anti-VOIP, but I have to be realistic as a fellow small business owner myself.

EV,
I do not disagree with your assessment that small business has no need for the kind of VoIP system that makes sense at an enterprise level. By the same token, they generally don’t need a full size PBX. Most of them need a simple key system that won’t break the bank; installed and maintained by an honest and skilled telecom vendor. Unfortunately, some of those small business owners will be sold one of the many crappy “internet phones” that are currently plaguing the market and they will incorrectly conclude that VoIP is crap. Any over generalized argument in favor or against a particular system is likely to be wrong in certain instances.

My issue is with Hal’s approach. He offered no constructive information, merely a metaphorical cry of “HERETIC!!!!! A POX UPON THEE FOR THAT THOU DOST INSTALL THE DEVIL’S INSTRUMENT WITHIN THY ENTERPRISE.” as he leapt to the attack.

I greatly respect Hal’s knowledge in other areas. He is a font of knowledge that is a tremendous asset to the forum and I have seen him provide facts and details unlikely to have been found elsewhere. However, since he is so offended by Cisco that he is compelled to insert his views every time it is mentioned anywhere on the forum, I see no reason to just sit back and let him spew . I think it’s probably good for his blood pressure to jack him up once in a while.

VoIP vs TDM has become like discussing religion and politics. Everybody has their own opinion and will defend it till death.

My dislike of VoIP has nothing to do with its concept-it's just another way of delivering voice from one point to another. What gnaws at me is the way it is being implemented. Telecom is being taken away from the people who have nurtured it since its inception and is being put in the hands of an immature industry that is basically reinventing the wheel.

You said it yourself, "telephony features are gradually being added as the CGs are bombarded with requests for them". If the "implementors" knew what they were doing, why weren't these features there in the first place?

If VoIP systems were built on the TDM models before it we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, everything was built from scratch by IT people for IT people, neither of which have a clue about how telecom should operate. The most unfortunate part is they think they do.

-Hal

Hal,
I agree with your above statement without reservation.

For those of us in an enterprise telecom department, we are either currently administering voice over IP or will be at some point in the future. So to paraphrase Clayton Williams (another old telecom guy) if it's inevitable, might as well enjoy it.

The term "PBX" is yet another IT-based misnomer, kind of like "RJ45". A PBX (Private Branch Exchange), by definition is a node from a host switch, typically a central office switch.

So many people out there are throwing these acronyms around with the sound of authority that people actually believe that they need to buy a PBX. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While it's true that you can still purchase a PBX if you want, most manufacturers now market their systems in a "hybrid" format, meaning that it offers both PBX and key system features. That makes perfect sense.

Nowadays, what we came to know as "hybrids" are splitting once again to incorporate VOIP capabilities. That is a move in the right direction for sure. Buy what you need, but make sure that whatever you buy is future-proof if you can afford it.

It is just like with buying trucks and cars, there are still great levels of separation in the telephone system market. Zippo, you work with trucks every day and will only buy trucks. Plenty of other folks out there only need a car, so that's what we as responsible business people should sell them. We would be dishonest to sell them a truck. Now, by putting a towing package on that car, we might give them a bit more flexibility. Not to be overly-simplistic, but it's important that we all understand that while IP has plenty to offer, it is unrealistic to expect our customers to jump upon popular acronyms, again many of which are misnomers.

Ed,
Nothing to argue with there. Except, had I been specific regarding the “PBXs” I started out working on I would have used Siemens terminology and referred to them as CBXs (Computerized Branch Exchange) or later they changed their terminology to call the very same box a “Hicom 300 Communications Server”.

Anyway, I agree that there are large numbers of small business owners out there that have been conned into buying a Freightliner when what would have served their purpose is more like a Toyota. Of course this is because the sales slug appealed to the SBO’s ego and convinced him he needed the undercoating and extended warranty to keep up with his competitors.

Nothing to argue here. It's healthy for different sides of this industry to interact and exchange information for any variety of reasons. I'd like to imagine that our exchange today has helped others in understanding certain areas of our biz that they may not otherwise encounter. I think that we all have given a good demonstration of how far-reaching our mutual knowledge really is, or at least how much is required.

Reading through this post, I can see both sides.
VOIP has its place, but until Cisco start giving all the options of a basic pbx gives as standard, I will always use the hybrid system. The likes of the tda or tde give you the same Ip handset and functions codes of a wired set, in the main office wired sets and on the remote site through the LAN Ip phones, so the network traffic is only whats needed.

I am afraid that Cisco and other VOIP systems did what Microsoft did with XP and now with Vista, they released it to the public and let them become the debuggers, and a lot of companies change back to pbx's and we hear a lot of negatives. Now a lot of telecom manufactures are now catching up with Ip option and years of telecom experience behind them.

Ken

For the enterprise & mid-sized business (100+ phones). The hybrid approach is a flawed approach. If you are purchasing a brand new system there is no reason to buy into the FUD factor that you can migrate to IP at your own pace. If the customer has the proper infrastructure....put in IP phones. Now if you have a system like an Avaya, Siemens, or NorTel and you have spent 100's of thousands of dollars over the past 10 years...that is where the hybrid system may make sense. The only reason these manufacturers developed the hybrid system is to protect their maintenance base of revenue. They are trying to build a wall around their customers to keep out the "evil" Cisco. I do not even like Cisco so don't think that I am biased towards them.

Will someone please enlighten me? What is the term "enterprise" supposed to mean? Is that the new CG term for "large"? Sorry, but this reminds me of the Dunkin Donuts commercials where the coffee specialty shops refer to their sizes as just about anything but small, medium and large.

Geez, not only are these people trying to reinvent the wheel, but they are trying to rewrite the dictionary while they are at it.

Enterprise= el grande.

-Hal

Tall, Venti, or Grande?
Sorry Ed, I had to

"Enterprise" doesn't just refer to size, but also to function. Usually, it is a mid-to-large size organization with multiple locations, that at some level, operates with uniform rules. For instance, every location/branch etc may have its own it/telecom dept. with its local responsibilities, but at some level their operations/planning must defer to the organisation as a whole, ie the "enterprize"-wide guielines/infrastructure.
To be competitive, you must be lean. Telecom/IT infrastructure can become particularly top-heavy. The savings to be realized from having a single infrastructure (and supporting staff) to handle all comms are significant. That infrastructure is the packet-switched networks that CAN work at all levels and with all types of communications.
Imo, this trend will trickle down. Unless you're one of those guys who thought 30 years ago that a 5-person office would never have use for a PBX, you should draw your own conclusions.

Of course if you are purchasing a new system it is relevant. Do you want to invest in old school TDM platforms that can be IP enanbled. Many customers have realized that the investment protection path provided to them by legacy PBX providers was leading to costly forklift upgrades, with additional costs for IP gateway cards. IP technology is more than just cost savings on your wire infrastructure. It is about simplicity, reliability, flexibility....items that are absent from the legacy system mentioned above.

The dark side is strong with that one.

Alright folks..enough! This post is wandering like a lost puppy. The OP was looking for a loud ringer app. He found it and is happy.


:bang: :bang: :bang:

Please note..there was three posts that were eliminated in this thread. Consider the topic closed.