regular phone adaptor over ip / network.

[parkland]

Hi everyone.

I wouldnt ask this here, but I'm hoping someones experience will tell me what I can not seem to find....

I'm looking for a product that will plug into a regular phone line, and connect to a network switch and a second module that would plug into a different part of the network and have a regular phone line plugged in.

It MUST exist right?

Anyone?

[Dave-D]

Sure thing--it's called an 'ATA.

Send me a PM and I'll give you
all the details. Dave

[agsweeney]

Adaptive Micro-Ware had something called "Remote-a-Phone" back in 2004 or 2005 that they were advertising for use with Moto Canopy as last mile solutions for dial tone.

It was uncompressed, so FAX would work over it too.

Not sure if it still exists.

[NZFoxnet]

As Dave said, its called an ATA. I use grandstream ATA's as they are cheap and do the job. I don't use grandstream IP's phones however as they are ugly!

Mike

[Dave-D]

Heck, Mike.

They're very inexpensive, work well and
look like phones. Ugly? Not to me.

BTW: I'm just about to deploy a WiFi
POTS extension using Grandstream ATAs. Dave

[WHT]

I'm looking for a product that will plug into a regular phone line, and connect to a network switch and a second module that would plug into a different part of the network and have a regular phone line plugged in.

As I understand it, you want to plug in a regular phone into a box, and that box connects to your network, and your network has another box that plugs into a phone line; such that you can use your phone without plugging it into a regular phone jack directly.

The answer is an Analog Telephone Adapter (ATA)...BUT....

Not any ATA will work. One has to have an FXS port and the other has to have an FXO port, AND they can't be "locked" to a particular VoIP service provider.

For example, the Cisco PAP2T Internet Phone Adapter with 2 VoIP Ports (which was a Linksys product, which was originally a Sipura product) will not work as it only has FXS ports. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10029/index.html

The Cisco SPA3102 (again a Sipura SPA3102) has an FXS *and* an FXO port.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10027/index.html

FXS and FXO can be confusing. Look at it this way.
* You home phone is an "office" (FXO) that plugs into a telco dial tone jack (a service). Your home phone would plug into an FXS port.
* The telephone jack in the wall is a "service" (FXS) with dial tone. Your telephone dial-tone would plug into an FXO port.
* FX stands for "foreign exchange" (a telephone phrase from decades ago) that meant a dial tone that wasn't originating from you "local exchange".

Now an FXO/FXS ATA will have both ports.
* The FXO port represents a telephone set, its is a "load", that plugs into a dial tone service. That means you would plug the ATA's FXO port into your telephone line.
* The FXS port represents a telephone line, it has a dial tone, that you plug a telephone set into. That means you would plug your telephone into the other ATA's FXS port.

At the telephone jack end at the wall, you would use the ATA's FXO port (and not use the FXS port).
At the remote telephone end, you would plug in yur telephone to the FXS port (and not use the FXO port).

Finally, you have to program the dialing strings in most ATA devices. This can end up not being a trivial task! The more the routing smarts the ATA has, the harder it is to program.

A general Sipura dialing-plan looks like this:
(<a1:b1>c1<:@gwX1>|<a2:b2>c2<:@gwX2>|...)

OR...
([2-79]11<:@gw0>|xx.|*xx.|**xx.|<#1,:>xx.<:@gw1>|<#9,:>xx .<:@gw0>|<#9,:>*xx<:@gw0>)

<1:100@192.168.0.51:5060> | <2:200@192.168.0.51:5060>
<1:100@192.168.0.51:5060> | <2:200@192.168.0.52:5060> | < 9:@gw0>
(*xx|[3469]11|0|00|[2-9]xxxxxx|1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0|xxxxxxxxxxxx.)
(S0<:200@192.168.0.104:5060>)

[WHT]

BTW...the Grandstream HandyTone HT503 ATA/IAD is the only HandyTone product that will work for you as only it has an FXO port.

[Griminal]

I have a question and just want to clarify. Two possible options for doing this task would be:

(2) Linksys SPA3102 units
(2) Grandstream HT503 units

Correct?

[Dave-D]

Mixing brands is asking for trouble.

Grandstream HT502 to HT503 if you
only have one POTS line to transport. Dave

PS: maybe I mis-read your post, 'griminal'.
If you meant either item 1 or item 2, you
can't use the 3102 back-to-back because
it has only one kind of port [as WHT noted].

You can use the HT503 back-to-back,
because it has one of each kind of POTS port.
If you use an HT502/HT503 combination, it's
a bit cheaper.

And if you're simply using these for POTS transport,
the dial plan is not a major issue at all.

[WHT]

(2) Linksys SPA3102 units

OR

(2) Grandstream HT503 units

[WHT]

you
can't use the 3102 back-to-back because
it has only one kind of port [as WHT noted].Its the PAP2T you can't use back-to-back as it lacks an FXO port.

You can use the 3102 back to back as it DOES have FXS and FXO ports. You just use the FXS on one and the FXO on the other.

[Dave-D]

<clip>
You can use the 3102 back to back as it DOES have FXS and FXO ports. You just use the FXS on one and the FXO on the other.

Correct--my error. It's the 2102 that
can't be used back-to-back. Dave

[WHT]

BTW...the Grandstream HandyTone HT503 ATA/IAD is the only HandyTone product that will work for you as only it has an FXO port.

Let me rephrase that....

Only the Grandstream HandyTone HT503 ATA/IAD will work as it has an FXO port, as well as an FXS port.

I didn't mean to say it has only one port and that being an FXO port. Rather, it has two ports.

[Griminal]

Thanks for the tip on Grandstream. I was going to try some SPA3102 units.

I'm assuming you folks would recommend the Grandstream over the Linksys?

[Dave-D]

I would definitely use the GS units
over the LS. But if you have multiple
lines, there are much better units. Dave

[Griminal]

I would definitely use the GS units
over the LS. But if you have multiple
lines, there are much better units. Dave

For curiosity sake, please drop a name for me so I can do some research on "better units".

[kilos]

Suprised parkland (junior member like me)did not get "flamed" or blasted by some members for posting some not related to Ubnt,as many a stupid/ignorant question can be asked by some members as they enter the ubnt forum, its all about learning from one another.

Yes the SPA2102 has 2 FXS ports, SPA3102 has the FXO/FXS ports

Thanks for the tip on Grandstream. I was going to try some SPA3102 units.

I'm assuming you folks would recommend the Grandstream over the Linksys?
My experience has been the Linksys rules over Grandstream, quality, firmware

[Dave-D]

kilos, this was a relevant and useful
question, and a lot more interesting
than many.

The two major categories of question
that IMHO deserve flame are:
'I'm too lazy to read any of the
tech notes; tell me what they say'
and 'I know nothing and I expect
you to design my system for free'.

Ubiquiti users can play a free card I
believe, because there are virtually
no manuals or full product docs.

is an assembly manual
with the Rocket dish. Gosh.....] Dave

[kilos]

I agree Dave, some users are just to lazy to search as I have seen,
buts thats forums for you, you get the new user that does not know
that the question has been asked many times before,new user should
not be too scared not to post.

[WHT]

Suprised parkland (junior member like me)did not get "flamed" or blasted by some members for posting some not related to Ubnt,He predicated his question that it might not be the right place to ask. That's a courtesy plus for him. He got answer because it was a valid question about an obscure need for information would take days to search on his own, where some of us have been down that road, and in some cases a dead end. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Three clues where I'm going with an answer in a topic....

1) "Hire a consultant" or "You're still about two years before your first customer" means you are way over your head at that point in time.

2) "What process explains that?" means you regurgitated a myth or misunderstanding that has been floating around way too long, i.e. "5.8 GHz is attenuated through the atmosphere more than 2.4 GHz" or "Microwave ovens use 2.4 GHz as its the resonance of water molecules".

3) If I ask in a very innocent tone, a question that would probably have an intuitive answer means I have an insight to something that is not so intuitively obvious. In other words, I'm waiting for you to take the bait.

[Dave-D]

..and all this with a supremely
subtle touch!

[WHT]

Subtle as comparing General Sherman's march through Atlanta to a family barbecue?

[Dave-D]

Subtle as the flight of a butterfly, as
compared to the flight of a penguin.

Barbecue? Now that is harsh--
with or without special sauce?

[WHT]

Ain't ya heard of "iron butterfly" heh heh heh

[parkland]

Thanks for the leads guys.

Looks interesting.

It sure is nice to be able to ask questions, stupid or not, even though it can be annoying sometimes.

The nice thing about asking in a forum, is that even if I spent hours or days looking at product on the internet, I still have no reliable opinion....now I do.

I realize that these products have nothing to do with UBNT products, but people who use UBNT products might end up looking into this as it is a cool product, that I truly did'nt realize existed to tell you all the truth.

thanks again!

[WifiMax]

I agree, you guys have been very helpful! I am using 2 bullet 5M's about 8 miles. I'm still planning the link up and I'm doing IPTV and internet over the line... I have always wondered about doing some sort of phone service over the line, but could not find an answer online as I did not quite know how to word my question. If anyone tests any of these ATAs and finds success let me know as I will probably pick some up myself :)

[kilos]

I have always wondered about doing some sort of phone service over the line, but could not find an answer online as I did not quite know how to word my question. If anyone tests any of these ATAs and finds success let me know as I will probably pick some up myself :)

These embedded Linux devices (like the Ubiquiti kit :icon_lol:) from Atcom use the well known PBX Asterisk software, all you need to do is hookup the Atcom IP PBX device (http://www.atcom.cn/products_ippbx.html) to your Telco and you can provide telco services to your remote links where the telcos will not install services

You can use an VoIP phone to connect to the Atcom IP PBX Asterisk or connect up your Desktop and run XLite (free SIP phone software) installed as a software based phone called "softphone"

Setup via web interface
The IP PBX can handle up to 50 extensions and 20 simultaneous SIP calls
David Rowe from Australia (http://www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk/ip04.html) developed this device based on the Blackfin processor

SIP protocol has some NAT traversal issues (Google it) and IAX2 works better as a Client rather than SIP

[Dave-D]

Kilos, you're describing a complete SIP PBX;
we were discussing simply extending a POTS
(analog phone) line across a network.

To do what we were discussing, you need no
PBX, and there are no NAT traversal issues
(and no dial plan issues) because the SIP
signals only travel across the local network.

There are lots of SIP PBXs on the market;
Atcom is one of many, and has no presence
in the States (it's purely Chinese). I use a
SIP [VoIP] PBX myself and also sell them.
I installed one in a WiFi PtP scenario.

You may be amused to discover that Engenius
[Senao] also announced a SIP PBX last year,
and this year took it off the market (and Website).

I would strongly discourage anybody without
both telephone and network experience and
lots of time from trying to deploy an Asterisk-
based PBX. The learning curve is fierce. Dave

[parkland]

That looks cool too, but I like the idea of offering a normal phone line at the custormer end- they can use what ever phone they want, and if it don't work, they can just go to walmart and buy another normal phone, whichever style they want.

[george]

We use Trixbox at on a Lylix VPS in New York hooked into a couple of VoIP providers.

Works slick, no NAT traversal problems, and its not on our network so it works even if we have a glitch. Quite a bit of work to set it up initially, so not for the faint hearted. Using Polycoms for phones btw...

George

[george]

That looks cool too, but I like the idea of offering a normal phone line at the custormer end- they can use what ever phone they want, and if it don't work, they can just go to walmart and buy another normal phone, whichever style they want.

We used 3102s for a while before moving away from POTS completely. Never could get them to work properly converting a phone line into IP, and we're not the only ones. The ex-Sipura stuff has a fairly evil reputation and a viscious learning curve.

George

[Dave-D]

'Parkland', this was my first response:

"Sure thing--it's called an 'ATA.

Send me a PM and I'll give you
all the details. Dave"

I never heard from you. Dave

[kilos]

Correct Dave, should have mentioned its in response to WiFiMAX response.
Added Wifimax quote in prev post

You can order the Atcom IP PBX from Dawid Rowe in Australia (http://www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk/store.html)as a test.
You can choose between modules with FXO or FXS ports

[gabes]

what you are looking is to extend the telephone line over a wireless network on a remote site. if its so i use a spa3102 where the regular telephone line is, and a PAP2 in the remote location configured to call each other when needed ](line ringing or dial)

[drwho17]

As Dave said, its called an ATA. I use grandstream ATA's as they are cheap and do the job. I don't use grandstream IP's phones however as they are ugly!

Mike
Problem with the Grandstreams is that they don't work through the Ubiquity NAT without a STUN server. Haven't looked into it fully, but there is a problem there.

[WHT]

what you are looking is to extend the telephone line over a wireless network on a remote site. if its so i use a spa3102 where the regular telephone line is, and a PAP2 in the remote location configured to call each other when needed ](line ringing or dial)Only a a matter of consistency, like if you want to test or whatever, I'd recommended same units at both end. Besides, too many PAP2 units might be locked (depend who you buy from)

]Never could get them to work properly converting a phone line into IP, and we're not the only ones. The ex-Sipura stuff has a fairly evil reputation and a viscious learning curve.
They are VERY difficult to set up first few (million) times. It took a lot of playing around and tweaking them to get what we want. I posted on DSLreports a link to my 50 or so dial plans for lots of set ups. I have a remote office and here behind some ComDial/Vertical DX-120 PBX boxes.

[Dave-D]

If you're extending a POTS line
over a LAN segment, this isn't
relevant. There is no NAT
traversal issue of any kind.

Are you sure the 'problem' with
Grandstream needing a STUN
server isn't a problem with the
particular NAT? Have you had
success with other brands? Dave

[parkland]

I was really hoping that for a POTS extension, it could have been as simple as plugging in the 2 modules anywhere on the network and programming them to talk to eachother. (So I could actually figure out how to do it LOL)

[WifiMax]

hahah likewise parkland, a simple setup for us nubs would be great :)

[Dave-D]

well, Vonage does this for phone
service. But they use private
(to them) STUN servers and
have worked out strategies
to overcome various NAT
issues. I never loved Vonage,
but I'm impressed by this.

POTS extenders in a private
LAN are a lot easier. Dave

[WifiMax]

I cant speak for parkland... but thats exactly what i'm looking for....

RJ11Jack---->pots extender---->Switch---->bullet----->remote site bullet---->switch---->pots extender----> NID

[Dave-D]

In most every case [as WHT intimated],
you'll do much better with VoIP as your
phone service to the client premises.

A VoIP phone is far better than an
ATA and plain phone, but either will
work. Not magic; I do it all the time.

Why must you extend just one
phone line to just one client? This
is usually the most expensive kind
of strategy; you have to pay the
phone company for that single line
then charge the client for transport. Dave

[WifiMax]

I work for a traditional ISP that offers the triple package. They give free services to all their employees. However I live outside their service area, so I've talked them into letting me mount some antennas on a 200' tower 9 miles away from my house to test a triple package over the bullets (IPTV, INternet, and phone) My bosses are always looking to test new things, and possibly offer it as a service to customer's just outside our plant reach.

Also i'm looking to cut costs at home, if I can cancel my Dish (75/month) dial up (13/month) and phone (80ish/month) I would be in heaven.... So i'm hoping to port my current phone number over to my ISP and make the savings even great :)... Also I am a test to see if a wireless deployment is feasable for consumer use.

[Dave-D]

So WiFiMax, you will be switching from
POTS to VoIP. Sounds good!

(Or maybe I mis-read; are you planning
to have VoIP to the tower, convert to
POTS, then back to VoIP for the WiFi
link to your house and back to POTS?)

If so, a recipe for cruddy phone service.

And number portability is supposed to
be guaranteed--you even pay a small
fee every month for the option. Dave

[WifiMax]

yeah sorry I didnt clarify that Dave, the ISP I work for does not have VOIP yet, we are working on rolling that out but currently we're focused on FTTH projects first.

Yeah I was hoping to basically go voip for 9 miles, then have POTS on each end of the bullet. Think that would be pretty horrible phone service? I couldnt really find any forums on people that have done that so I didnt even know if it was possible... but I'm guessing its a bad idea :) Converting copper to IP and back to copper... what coulda go wrong? :-D

Thanks for the input!

[Dave-D]

Heh! I was guessing that your ISP
transported via VoIP, because that's
what they typically do around here.
Otherwise, they have to setup a
central office and rent the last mile.

And they already own their IP network.

FTTH goes naturally with VoIP. And the
back-end transport for many phone
companies is often VoIP anyhow.

A true POTS line to VoIP to POTS is
not too bad. The largest problem is
(obviously) supervision: ringing, hook
up/down and connect/disconnect.
Biggest issue I've found is when the
POTS caller hangs up before the VoIP
called party; tends to hang the line.

But in your case, why not simply buy
VoIP service and port your number?
Then you will have VoIP to your home
and can choose either ATA or SIP.
(Sometimes 'free' isn't a bargain.) Dave

[WHT]

Whoaaa.......Trigger

What ya'll are trying to do are entirely different things here.

[Dave-D]

Justin are you riding side-saddle again? Dave

[parkland]

Whoaaa.......Trigger

What ya'll are trying to do are entirely different things here.

Yes, but it is amusing because I'm learning all the possibilities! :icon_wink:

[parkland]

I cant speak for parkland... but thats exactly what i'm looking for....

RJ11Jack---->pots extender---->Switch---->bullet----->remote site bullet---->switch---->pots extender----> NID

I'm looking for:

RJ11Jack---->POTS extender ----->switch ----->bullet ---->bullet---->switch---->"insert whatever is needed here to change back into an RJ11 jack again"

[panamasteve]

I've been using that magic jack thing via 2mb wireless link for about 9 months. I'm extremely pleased--especially for the price. That might be a somethin' to think about.....

[WHT]

But you have to have a PC running the Magic Jack client.

[gabes]

I'm looking for:

RJ11Jack---->POTS extender ----->switch ----->bullet ---->bullet---->switch---->"insert whatever is needed here to change back into an RJ11 jack again"

That's exactly what i have using the spa3102 and the pap2, the pap2 you can buy it unlocked online there are several stores that sell exclusively voip equipment, i have this my fax is connected to it, my PBX, and monitoring the alarm system via phone line in the remote office about 10 km long, and for the configuration i can send you a page or document on how to get them working