Hi folks,
If anyone here has worked with VoIP PBX systems (after all, I'm told,
it's "just a computer"), can you answer this question?
Is it an "industry standard" for these systems to fail to pass
through basic signaling from the PSTN (public switched telephone
network) to the ears of people using the phones?
We recently purchased such a system and, while it transmit a
"ringing" signal when we dial a number outside our system, it does
not transmit "busy" signals when the line we dialed is engaged. It
also does not transmit fax tones when we dial a fax number (useful
for diagnosing faxing problems), nor does it transmit recorded audio
from a phone company, such as "The number you have reached is no
longer in service" (useful for what should be obvious reasons).
The vendor claims that our expectations that a PBX phone system
should do these things are unrealistic, and that if we want it fixed,
we should pay for "support".
My contention is that these failures are product defects that should
be repaired under warranty.
What is your experience on these things?
Thank you very much.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/EA.8F.30685.55239F65@cdptpa-oedge03
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Tracy Pearson
Posted: 2016-03-28 09:16:25 Link
Ken Dibble wrote on 2016-03-28:
> Hi folks,
>
> If anyone here has worked with VoIP PBX systems (after all, I'm told,
> it's "just a computer"), can you answer this question?
>
> Is it an "industry standard" for these systems to fail to pass
> through basic signaling from the PSTN (public switched telephone
> network) to the ears of people using the phones?
>
> We recently purchased such a system and, while it transmit a
> "ringing" signal when we dial a number outside our system, it does
> not transmit "busy" signals when the line we dialed is engaged. It
> also does not transmit fax tones when we dial a fax number (useful
> for diagnosing faxing problems), nor does it transmit recorded audio
> from a phone company, such as "The number you have reached is no
> longer in service" (useful for what should be obvious reasons).
>
> The vendor claims that our expectations that a PBX phone system
> should do these things are unrealistic, and that if we want it fixed,
> we should pay for "support".
>
> My contention is that these failures are product defects that should
> be repaired under warranty.
>
> What is your experience on these things?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
Ken,
I don't know if our system is a VOIP PBX. I do know our phones are VOIP, and
it is a box in our computer room.
We get busy signals, out of service messages, and recorded messages about
circuits being busy.
If it never worked, that is a warranty issue. If it used to work, and now
doesn't and no one has changed things on your end, sounds like a codec issue
according to this page:
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/714713-busy-signal-when-dialing-outsi
de-line-or-voicemail-cisco-7960-phone-and-asterisk
You've reached the end of my experience. I do hope you get it worked out.
Tracy Pearson
PowerChurch Software
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/001501d188fc$6a265c10$3e731430$@powerchurch.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Is it an "industry standard" for these systems to fail to pass through basic
> signaling from the PSTN (public switched telephone network) to the ears of
> people using the phones?
>
> We recently purchased such a system and, while it transmit a "ringing"
> signal when we dial a number outside our system, it does not transmit "busy"
> signals when the line we dialed is engaged. It also does not transmit fax
> tones when we dial a fax number (useful for diagnosing faxing problems), nor
> does it transmit recorded audio from a phone company, such as "The number
> you have reached is no longer in service" (useful for what should be obvious
> reasons).
>
None of that sounds right. A VOIP/PBX system should have more features
than the old copper circuits, not less.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4viB7uCvkDM3k3ps3CgJ3za83X4qKSpdgD5rR6c92_EzA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Stephen Russell
Posted: 2016-03-28 09:45:20 Link
Sounds like a false statement from them.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> If anyone here has worked with VoIP PBX systems (after all, I'm told, it's
> "just a computer"), can you answer this question?
>
> Is it an "industry standard" for these systems to fail to pass through
> basic signaling from the PSTN (public switched telephone network) to the
> ears of people using the phones?
>
> We recently purchased such a system and, while it transmit a "ringing"
> signal when we dial a number outside our system, it does not transmit
> "busy" signals when the line we dialed is engaged. It also does not
> transmit fax tones when we dial a fax number (useful for diagnosing faxing
> problems), nor does it transmit recorded audio from a phone company, such
> as "The number you have reached is no longer in service" (useful for what
> should be obvious reasons).
>
> The vendor claims that our expectations that a PBX phone system should do
> these things are unrealistic, and that if we want it fixed, we should pay
> for "support".
>
> My contention is that these failures are product defects that should be
> repaired under warranty.
>
> What is your experience on these things?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYJoVvG7gfkBOJbEDN9v18HbCHtVTj+NwT6LjOA49gsqpQ@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Ken - I agree with everyone here. This doesn't sound right - and sounds like they are really screwing you guys over - and then demanding More money to resolve THEIR Own deficiencies!
At my previous job - I know they had a VOIP phone system in the office - it was installed while I worked there. Actually - it's the Dad of my manager - whose co. installed the system. So - if you want - maybe I could get you connected with them - and discuss your issues with them. Then maybe Drop the current jerks and get a New system!
Regards,
Kurt Wendt
Consultant
Tel. +1-212-747-9100
www.GlobeTax.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Russell
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:45 AM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: [NF] VoIP Phone Systems and PSTN Signalling
Sounds like a false statement from them.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> If anyone here has worked with VoIP PBX systems (after all, I'm told,
> it's "just a computer"), can you answer this question?
>
> Is it an "industry standard" for these systems to fail to pass through
> basic signaling from the PSTN (public switched telephone network) to
> the ears of people using the phones?
>
> We recently purchased such a system and, while it transmit a "ringing"
> signal when we dial a number outside our system, it does not transmit
> "busy" signals when the line we dialed is engaged. It also does not
> transmit fax tones when we dial a fax number (useful for diagnosing
> faxing problems), nor does it transmit recorded audio from a phone
> company, such as "The number you have reached is no longer in service"
> (useful for what should be obvious reasons).
>
> The vendor claims that our expectations that a PBX phone system should
> do these things are unrealistic, and that if we want it fixed, we
> should pay for "support".
>
> My contention is that these failures are product defects that should
> be repaired under warranty.
>
> What is your experience on these things?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/80838F1CA795B14EA1AF48659F35166F293B98@DREXCH02.corp.globetax.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Thank you to everyone who responded.
I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the
problem is related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code
183 messaging. We are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with
the PSTN via a Level 3 (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think
there is/are a configuration issue(s) related to this messaging
somewhere either in the Level 3 service, the Patton gateway, the 3CX
VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones.
This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly
experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT
administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone
systems. Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone
installation they've ever done, and they had only done a literal
handful before us. We trusted them because they've been very good on
strictly computer stuff. Their management is failing to accept that
this is different: They did not sell us a server, software, switches
and phones, separately. They sold us a phone *system*, and they are
responsible for all aspects of the system functioning properly.
Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including
the one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software
components. The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows
computer does not, IMO, change the "business model" with regard to
the sale of phone systems in any respect. A digital PBX vendor would
immediately accept responsibility for failing to deliver a
properly-configured system and fix it, for no charge.
I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this
problem and would not have had much difficulty in getting the
configuration(s) done correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience,
underbid the installation labor cost, and underestimated the
difficulty of properly configuring our system, and is now trying to
recoup its losses.
I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how
to design and install phone systems properly.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/0A.08.08592.9FFAAF65@cdptpa-oedge03
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
I think folks have gotten pretty lackadaisical with "acceptable level
of service" for computers these days. The phone industry operates at a
different level.
I hope you've got some good leverage in emphasizing this message to your vendor.
I know a few locals who design/build/install/support Asterisk
installations and them tell me it's a tough business.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Thank you to everyone who responded.
>
> I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the problem is
> related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code 183 messaging. We
> are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with the PSTN via a Level 3
> (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think there is/are a configuration
> issue(s) related to this messaging somewhere either in the Level 3 service,
> the Patton gateway, the 3CX VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones.
>
> This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly
> experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT
> administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone systems.
> Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone installation
> they've ever done, and they had only done a literal handful before us. We
> trusted them because they've been very good on strictly computer stuff.
> Their management is failing to accept that this is different: They did not
> sell us a server, software, switches and phones, separately. They sold us a
> phone *system*, and they are responsible for all aspects of the system
> functioning properly.
>
> Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including the
> one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software components.
> The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows computer does not, IMO,
> change the "business model" with regard to the sale of phone systems in any
> respect. A digital PBX vendor would immediately accept responsibility for
> failing to deliver a properly-configured system and fix it, for no charge.
>
> I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this problem and
> would not have had much difficulty in getting the configuration(s) done
> correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience, underbid the installation labor
> cost, and underestimated the difficulty of properly configuring our system,
> and is now trying to recoup its losses.
>
> I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how to
> design and install phone systems properly.
>
> Ken Dibble
> www.stic-cil.org
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4vgbBbfN2j3wOoipXZEyMGEZBnCiE38ULJVRVB8Ganscw@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
We took a bid from an Asterix vendor. I actually would have preferred
a Linux-based system, but they were even smaller and less experienced
than the vendor we went with.
>I think folks have gotten pretty lackadaisical with "acceptable level
>of service" for computers these days. The phone industry operates at a
>different level.
>
>I hope you've got some good leverage in emphasizing this message to
>your vendor.
>
>I know a few locals who design/build/install/support Asterisk
>installations and them tell me it's a tough business.
>
>On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > Thank you to everyone who responded.
> >
> > I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the problem is
> > related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code 183 messaging. We
> > are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with the PSTN via a Level 3
> > (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think there is/are a configuration
> > issue(s) related to this messaging somewhere either in the Level 3 service,
> > the Patton gateway, the 3CX VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones.
> >
> > This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly
> > experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT
> > administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone systems.
> > Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone installation
> > they've ever done, and they had only done a literal handful before us. We
> > trusted them because they've been very good on strictly computer stuff.
> > Their management is failing to accept that this is different: They did not
> > sell us a server, software, switches and phones, separately. They sold us a
> > phone *system*, and they are responsible for all aspects of the system
> > functioning properly.
> >
> > Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including the
> > one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software components.
> > The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows computer
> does not, IMO,
> > change the "business model" with regard to the sale of phone systems in any
> > respect. A digital PBX vendor would immediately accept responsibility for
> > failing to deliver a properly-configured system and fix it, for no charge.
> >
> > I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this
> problem and
> > would not have had much difficulty in getting the configuration(s) done
> > correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience, underbid the
> installation labor
> > cost, and underestimated the difficulty of properly configuring our system,
> > and is now trying to recoup its losses.
> >
> > I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how to
> > design and install phone systems properly.
> >
> > Ken Dibble
> > www.stic-cil.org
> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/F3.36.32631.2E6CAF65@cdptpa-oedge01
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Yes, the technology definitely needs to take a back seat to the
ability of the vendor to understand and meet your needs.
Asterisk is a remarkably feature-filled and robust product, but like
any of the other tools, you need to find someone who knows how to use
it and can offer the support you need.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> We took a bid from an Asterix vendor. I actually would have preferred a
> Linux-based system, but they were even smaller and less experienced than the
> vendor we went with.
>
>
>> I think folks have gotten pretty lackadaisical with "acceptable level
>> of service" for computers these days. The phone industry operates at a
>> different level.
>>
>> I hope you've got some good leverage in emphasizing this message to your
>> vendor.
>>
>> I know a few locals who design/build/install/support Asterisk
>> installations and them tell me it's a tough business.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>> > Thank you to everyone who responded.
>> >
>> > I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the problem
>> > is
>> > related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code 183 messaging.
>> > We
>> > are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with the PSTN via a Level 3
>> > (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think there is/are a configuration
>> > issue(s) related to this messaging somewhere either in the Level 3
>> > service,
>> > the Patton gateway, the 3CX VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones.
>> >
>> > This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly
>> > experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT
>> > administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone systems.
>> > Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone installation
>> > they've ever done, and they had only done a literal handful before us.
>> > We
>> > trusted them because they've been very good on strictly computer stuff.
>> > Their management is failing to accept that this is different: They did
>> > not
>> > sell us a server, software, switches and phones, separately. They sold
>> > us a
>> > phone *system*, and they are responsible for all aspects of the system
>> > functioning properly.
>> >
>> > Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including
>> > the
>> > one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software
>> > components.
>> > The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows computer does not,
>> > IMO,
>> > change the "business model" with regard to the sale of phone systems in
>> > any
>> > respect. A digital PBX vendor would immediately accept responsibility
>> > for
>> > failing to deliver a properly-configured system and fix it, for no
>> > charge.
>> >
>> > I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this problem
>> > and
>> > would not have had much difficulty in getting the configuration(s) done
>> > correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience, underbid the installation
>> > labor
>> > cost, and underestimated the difficulty of properly configuring our
>> > system,
>> > and is now trying to recoup its losses.
>> >
>> > I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how to
>> > design and install phone systems properly.
>> >
>> > Ken Dibble
>> > www.stic-cil.org
>> >
>> >
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4vXs+jgtBWbD7SNVqVV3ai8yyU+dyVogLZkwRBavcuxnA@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Charles Hart Enzer, M.D.
Posted: 2016-03-29 15:24:59 Link
Not exactly related.
I use *eVoice* <http://www.evoice.com> and our grandson uses *Grasshopper
<http://grasshopper.com>*
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
*Shai / שי Charles Hart Enzer, M.D., FAACAPVolunteer Associate Professor of
PsychiatryUniversity of Cincinnati Medical
CenterWebSite:http://TinyURL.com/EnzerMD <http://TinyURL.com/EnzerMD>*
*“There is no passion to be found playing small -- in settling for a
life** that is less than the one you are capable of living.”*
*Nelson Mandela*
*Stop **Spammers** and **Virus Propagation*
*Before forwarding, please delete the history of all email address*
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Ted Roche <tedroche@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the technology definitely needs to take a back seat to the
> ability of the vendor to understand and meet your needs.
>
> Asterisk is a remarkably feature-filled and robust product, but like
> any of the other tools, you need to find someone who knows how to use
> it and can offer the support you need.
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > We took a bid from an Asterix vendor. I actually would have preferred a
> > Linux-based system, but they were even smaller and less experienced than
> the
> > vendor we went with.
> >
> >
> >> I think folks have gotten pretty lackadaisical with "acceptable level
> >> of service" for computers these days. The phone industry operates at a
> >> different level.
> >>
> >> I hope you've got some good leverage in emphasizing this message to your
> >> vendor.
> >>
> >> I know a few locals who design/build/install/support Asterisk
> >> installations and them tell me it's a tough business.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ken Dibble <krdibble@stny.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Thank you to everyone who responded.
> >> >
> >> > I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the
> problem
> >> > is
> >> > related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code 183 messaging.
> >> > We
> >> > are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with the PSTN via a
> Level 3
> >> > (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think there is/are a
> configuration
> >> > issue(s) related to this messaging somewhere either in the Level 3
> >> > service,
> >> > the Patton gateway, the 3CX VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones.
> >> >
> >> > This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly
> >> > experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT
> >> > administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone
> systems.
> >> > Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone installation
> >> > they've ever done, and they had only done a literal handful before us.
> >> > We
> >> > trusted them because they've been very good on strictly computer
> stuff.
> >> > Their management is failing to accept that this is different: They did
> >> > not
> >> > sell us a server, software, switches and phones, separately. They sold
> >> > us a
> >> > phone *system*, and they are responsible for all aspects of the system
> >> > functioning properly.
> >> >
> >> > Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including
> >> > the
> >> > one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software
> >> > components.
> >> > The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows computer does
> not,
> >> > IMO,
> >> > change the "business model" with regard to the sale of phone systems
> in
> >> > any
> >> > respect. A digital PBX vendor would immediately accept responsibility
> >> > for
> >> > failing to deliver a properly-configured system and fix it, for no
> >> > charge.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this
> problem
> >> > and
> >> > would not have had much difficulty in getting the configuration(s)
> done
> >> > correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience, underbid the installation
> >> > labor
> >> > cost, and underestimated the difficulty of properly configuring our
> >> > system,
> >> > and is now trying to recoup its losses.
> >> >
> >> > I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how to
> >> > design and install phone systems properly.
> >> >
> >> > Ken Dibble
> >> > www.stic-cil.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAFSdja0bVAF-Xu+NZpAGuPcXRb+bokm4W=D0YVeSjEGHuO56hQ@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.