[cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187

[Angel Castaneda]

Thank you all for your responses. I'll bring these comments to the person
who ends up authorizing the purchase of equipment.

Trust me: if it were up to me, faxes would be completely removed.
Unfortunately, we still need them for certain business functions, and I
don't see them going away any time soon.

Thanks again.



*Angel Castaneda*


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Ballard <mballard at otis.edu> wrote:

>  I agree, although it’s amazing how hard it can be to get people to
> switch (even down to faxing between departments here), although we’ve made
> progress.****
>
> ** **
>
> The biggest thing I did that removed most of the headache for me was
> moving to a fax server (we use XMedius) combined with HP DSS, and a hard
> rule that says if you want a fax machine, it must be a HP MFP that supports
> DSS, which I have support from my boss (who approves any purchases along
> those lines) for that.****
>
> ** **
>
> At this point I’m down to one analog fax line (I used to deal with around
> 30), and the only reason that one is left is that the unit itself is
> perfectly fine, but just below a model that supports DSS (M3027 instead of
> M3035, rather annoying), so it hasn’t been worth the hassle to push them
> off (plus it wouldn’t let me decommission the VG224, and they haven’t been
> having problems, so the benefit is minimal).****
>
> ** **
>
> I am very happy to have analog faxes nearly gone from my life…****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Ballard****
>
> Network Manager****
>
> Otis College of Art and Design****
>
> mballard at otis.edu****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Norton, Mike [mailto:mikenorton at pwsd76.ab.ca]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 12:00 PM
> *To:* Haas, Neal; Matthew Ballard; 'Angel Castaneda';
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187****
>
> ** **
>
> I would take it further and say, if you want good and reliable fax
> service, USE EMAIL! Faxing is obsolete. Expensive, kludgey user experience,
> doesn’t do anything that modern alternatives can’t, etc. Nobody would even
> use faxing anymore if it weren’t for the fact that old people are afraid to
> get rid of it. Photocopiers pretty much all have scan-to-email as a
> standard feature these days, for the folks who insist on involving paper in
> the process.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve done fax-email gateways, ATAs, FXSes, POTS lines, and what they all
> have in common is that faxing is ancient crap that just plain sucks. No way
> around it. We pointed out to our administration the amount of money faxing
> costs and asked them to consider if they actually receive that amount of
> value out of it. Response was cautious but receptive.****
>
> ** **
>
> IMO, the end goal of any fax deployment should be phasing it out, just as
> with any deployment of ancient legacy crap.****
>
> ** **
>
> -mn****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Haas, Neal
> *Sent:* April-19-13 12:10 PM
> *To:* Matthew Ballard; 'Angel Castaneda'; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187****
>
> ** **
>
> If you want good and reliable fax service stay away from the Analog VoIP
> solutions – we have done all of the above, ATA186,ATA187, VG202, VG224 the
> last two being the best. With all of these devices your fax machines will
> need to be reduced to 24.4(?) KB on the fax machines (which doubles send
> and receive times). I have some faxes that can receive up to 1000 faxes per
> day. We ended up moving them back to 1MB’s. Just to be clear we had
> installed over 200 ports on a range of these ATA devices, a majority have
> now been put back on 1MB’s just to stop the helpdesk calls.****
>
> ** **
>
> We worked with Cisco for 3 years, even were given demo devises to test. In
> the end we were on a conference call with a TAC engineer and he said “why
> would you use the ATA’s for faxes? I always tell my customers to leave
> Faxing to AT&T”****
>
> ** **
>
> If you want to work yourself into the funny farm go with Analog on VoIP.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> For a different Idea, try FoIP -  OMTools. We are going with this solution
> and have just finished a trial with it and it works.****
>
> ** **
>
> Just my 2 cents****
>
> ** **
>
> Neal Haas****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Ballard
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 10:13 AM
> *To:* 'Angel Castaneda'; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187****
>
> ** **
>
> The VG202 runs IOS, which means it can do pretty much anything any other
> IOS based voice gateway can do (taking into account that it only has the
> two voice ports).****
>
> ** **
>
> The ATA 187 is more of a client device.  I know the 186 was much more
> limited it’s fax support (for example it didn’t do standards based T.38).
> I don’t know how the 187 does in comparison, but I found the 186 to be very
> unreliable in terms of doing faxes.****
>
> ** **
>
> Basically the VG202 gives you more power and control over configuration,
> and is more capable, but the ATA 187 is easier to setup, but (at least to
> me) an unknown level of handling of fax.****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Ballard****
>
> Network Manager****
>
> Otis College of Art and Design****
>
> mballard at otis.edu****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Angel Castaneda
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 7:34 AM
> *To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187****
>
> ** **
>
> Good morning all,****
>
> ** **
>
> We're looking at moving our fax machines to CUCM 9.1, but we do not have
> the need for a VG224, as it's only a few devices.****
>
> ** **
>
> Other than the extra Ethernet port on a VG202, is there another reason I
> should be choosing that over an ATA187? Price-wise, the ATA187 is more
> attractive to us.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you in advance,****
>
> ** **
>
> *Angel Castaneda*****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130419/8038e99b/attachment.html>