Faxing
-
We have a FreePBX server here. What's the best way to handle faxing?
-
Depends on the use case. Faxing through the FreePBX is an option. But most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.
Such as?
-
@aaronstuder said in Faxing:
We have a FreePBX server here. What's the best way to handle faxing?
To burn it with fire.
-
@aaronstuder said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.
Such as?
Google.
-
Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.
-
-
-
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I am sure some people try to tell you that, but I have heard of any state that requires POTS in every business. Such a law would never pass a judicial review.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
-
Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.
Honestly - you would have much less stress and other issues if you use a POTS line.
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
Not if the PBX goes down. You'd have nothing that you didn't have before in that case.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
-
Now, what most states require is that a business provide valid 911 service.
This is simple. You pay your SIP provider their E911 fee, verify/validate your address. and you are done.
If you have more than one location coming into your PBX< you may have to buy more DID to have a route with a confirmed address for each location.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.
There has never been a regulation anywhere that I have worked with VoIP.
That is a complete myth. See my previous post.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.
Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.
There has never been a regulation anywhere that I have worked with VoIP.
That is a complete myth. See my previous post.
That's fine, appreciate the info.
-
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
@scottalanmiller said in Faxing:
@JaredBusch said in Faxing:
It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.
This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.
In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.
I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.
The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.
This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.
If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.
That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.
Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?
Where we live the POTS line is much more reliable then the internet line. I get where you're coming from though. I can see where my thinking is flawed I appreciate you pointing it out.
