[cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187

Sun Apr 21 16:58:07 EDT 2013

Another option if you have it is to run the fax line to the gateway
connected to the PSTN. Provided that you're not using MGCP, DSPs won't be
involved. Which means there's no IP - you're just using the router as a TDM
back plane. That's the most reliable way to prevent FoIP issues.

The VG202's actually can do plug and play with sccp auto-configure
features. In theory you can do it with a VG224 or a 3900 as well since it's
an IOS feature, though not widely used.

Other than that, get all faxes over to a fax server.

-nick

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:

> We just need the gov't to approve it in HIPPA, and
> other certifications like it.  in the medical field it's considered secure
> transport of information.  in the Construction field it's just really easy
> to put a old fax on the desk and send stuff.  either way, it just needs to
> go away.
>
> YMMV
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Angel Castaneda <hello at angelcastaneda.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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*****
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130421/4019ea39/attachment.html>