Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? Message-ID: <11205@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 22 Aug 90 08:36:12 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 28 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 587, Message 2 of 11 "Ole J. Jacobsen" writes: > Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines, > *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions > P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic > KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence > test in this respect. Arrg. Are you serious? What you describe is also true of the most expensive Mitels, ITT 3100s, Meridian/SL1s, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Why on earth should a PBX be equipped with "line status detection" when it was never intended that a trunk would be shared with foreign equipment? Would you dangle some gadget off of a four-wire E&M trunk and then expect a PBX to detect it and deal with it? A trunk to a PBX, whether it be two wire (ground or loop start) or four wire E&M is supposed to be a trunk to a PBX and is not intended to be shared with modems, answering machines, dialers, or any other doodads. Some PBXs accept trunks as T-spans. What kind of gadgetry would you expect to be able to tack on to those circuits and have the PBX recognize it and deal with it? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !