<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>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.<br>
<br></div>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.<br><br></div>Other than that, get all faxes over to a fax server.<br>
<br></div>-nick<br><div><div><br><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Scott Voll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:svoll.voip@gmail.com" target="_blank">svoll.voip@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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.<div>
<br></div><div>YMMV</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Scott<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Angel Castaneda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hello@angelcastaneda.com" target="_blank">hello@angelcastaneda.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
Thank you all for your responses. I'll bring these comments to the person who ends up authorizing the purchase of equipment.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks again.</div><span><font color="#888888">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">
</font></span><div class="gmail_extra"><span><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><b>Angel Castaneda</b></font></div></div></font></span><div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Matthew Ballard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mballard@otis.edu" target="_blank">mballard@otis.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I am very happy to have analog faxes nearly gone from my life…<u></u><u></u></span></p><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Matthew Ballard<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Network Manager<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Otis College of Art and Design<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:mballard@otis.edu" target="_blank">mballard@otis.edu</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Norton, Mike [mailto:<a href="mailto:mikenorton@pwsd76.ab.ca" target="_blank">mikenorton@pwsd76.ab.ca</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 19, 2013 12:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Haas, Neal; Matthew Ballard; 'Angel Castaneda'; <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA">IMO, the end goal of any fax deployment should be phasing it out, just as with any deployment of ancient legacy crap.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA">-mn<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d" lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cisco-voip [<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Haas, Neal<br>
<b>Sent:</b> April-19-13 12:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Matthew Ballard; 'Angel Castaneda'; <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">If you want to work yourself into the funny farm go with Analog on VoIP.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">For a different Idea, try FoIP - OMTools. We are going with this solution and have just finished a trial with it and it works.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Just my 2 cents<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Neal Haas<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cisco-voip [<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matthew Ballard<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 19, 2013 10:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Angel Castaneda'; <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Matthew Ballard<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Network Manager<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Otis College of Art and Design<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:mballard@otis.edu" target="_blank">mballard@otis.edu</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> cisco-voip [<a href="mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Angel Castaneda<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 19, 2013 7:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cisco-voip] VG202 vs ATA187<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Good morning all,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Thank you in advance,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Angel Castaneda</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>