Paul,
I use a Linksys (Cisco) SPA3102 at the house. I'll admit the possibility of a bias given the email address, but its been a pretty reliable device. The device provides one port each of Ethernet, FXO and FXS. Which you use for what is the first warning that a VOIP network is a far more complex beast than having a POTS line running to a modem attached to a PC. Actually, the 3102 provides two Ethernet ports, but it also assumes you'll be using the device as your local router to the Internet, too (it does NAT and other gateway stuff, too).
There aren't any DIP switches or AT commands - its not a modem, but there are PAGES of configuration options, many of which you should fully understand the implications before changing the default values. A non-US user will have more to set up than a US user (the SPAs defaults are set for the US), and there are certainly some steep learning curves for those without a telephony background, but there are some good, almost-accurate tutorials out there (and almost as many not-quite-standard telephone networks to plug in to).
Once the SPA is configured and on the network, it becomes another SIP end point, and then Asterisk effectively becomes the call manager to route transactions between the online end points. So, for example, dialing "9" on a handset might have Asterisk connect the handset to the outside line provided by the SPA giving you a second dial tone to dial away, or perhaps you build a dial plan that routes some calls through the SPA, and others through the Internet... The options with Asterisk are pretty limitless - it supports typical PBX calling scenarios, voice mail, IVR, bridges (multiple calls in to a "conference room"), queues, and so forth... Again, the learning curve can get quite steep if you don't have a telephony background, and the changes on the active project means you may have relearn features as they get reimplemented.
The complexity of building a VOIP network is why I'll be the first to say that m-/v-getty still has their place... you trade off a lot of the whiz-bang features for relative simplicity - a couple of config files, typically, for vgetty and it works. With Asterisk on the other hand, you get to ask yourself questions like "Should I use G.711 fax or T38 over this link?" and get different answers due to the equipment, settings, network, and seemingly phase of the moon that day. vGetty and my custom application Calltree handled a number of non-profits in my area for years doing things like IVR, voice mail, and fax - there are probably some still out there using them... Typically the "jump off" point was when the non-profit got big enough to get a real office, and started having regular office hours and staff to take the calls (and real office PBX needs).
-B
________________________________________
From: Paul Fox [***@foxharp.boston.ma.us]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 5:09 PM
To: ***@muc.de
Subject: Re: test
Post by Brian McGovern (bmcgover)There are a number of us still out here, and m-/v-getty do still
get used from time to time for specific tasks. However, most of
i still use it daily for voicemail and auto-dialing at home.
i'm intrigued, though...
Post by Brian McGovern (bmcgover)the IP telephony world has moved forward, and whereas a good VOIP
gateway costs in the same ballpark as a good modem with voice
capabilities, the VOIP gateway and a product like Asterisk
typically have more features than the voice modem can give you
how exactly does a VOIP gateway help with interfacing to the POTS
network? i've considered moving away from mgetty to asterisk, but
assumed i'd need a PC telephony card, and then i always picture
configuring DIP switches and set the thought aside. ;-)
paul
Post by Brian McGovern (bmcgover)(e.g. most of the modems only do unidirectional voice). However,
prior to cheap voice gateways, the vgetty API let you do some
pretty awesome things with telephony you otherwise couldn't do.
-B
________________________________________
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 7:31 AM
To: Ignatios Souvatzis (usenet)
Subject: Re: test
Hi,
Sort of.
The *list* is very much alive and kicking, but I'm not sure many users
are left... (and I have been busy elsewhere, so not much has changed
in mgetty land).
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
----------------------
paul fox, ***@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 3.7 degrees)
--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de