Skyetel has HTTPS ATAs now.
-
-
Just got pricing from them. $175 plus $10 for shipping; and then $5/month (Plus in/out charges? They don't say anywhere.)
Too pricey, especially when their marketing says: "And, the best part, that does all that at a price that no other provider can match."
That statement instantly led me to believe it would be noticeably less than the Cisco ATA 191.
I know one is SIP / T.38 and the other is HTTPS, but if T.38 is working perfectly, why spend more for HTTPS?
-
@jasgot said in Skyetel has HTTPS ATAs now.:
I know one is SIP / T.38 and the other is HTTPS, but if T.38 is working perfectly, why spend more for HTTPS?
Compliance. T.38 and HTTPS are also not mutually exclusive.
-
@jasgot said in Skyetel has HTTPS ATAs now.:
That statement instantly led me to believe it would be noticeably less than the Cisco ATA 191.
It shouldn't. They are very different things and it's about fixing the problems that the Cisco (and anything like that) has.
The Cisco is just an ATA. Nothing wrong with that, we use them. But it's a super basic device.
The Skyetel device is not a SIP device, nor is it a blind analogue to digital converter. It's a different product. It uses a more reliable protocol, a more secure protocol, and it provides a web interface for all digital faxing that the Cisco (or any traditional ATA) does not.
-
@jasgot said in Skyetel has HTTPS ATAs now.:
I know one is SIP / T.38 and the other is HTTPS, but if T.38 is working perfectly, why spend more for HTTPS?
I think the answer is, in the rare circumstance that SIP / T.38 is working perfectly, you would not change. We have big customers doing tons of faxing and they desperately need this solution because they can't get SIP / T.38 to an acceptable failure rate.
-
@jasgot said in Skyetel has HTTPS ATAs now.:
Just got pricing from them. $175 plus $10 for shipping; and then $5/month (Plus in/out charges? They don't say anywhere.)
Too pricey, especially when their marketing says: "And, the best part, that does all that at a price that no other provider can match."
That statement instantly led me to believe it would be noticeably less than the Cisco ATA 191.
I know one is SIP / T.38 and the other is HTTPS, but if T.38 is working perfectly, why spend more for HTTPS?
Make sure you talk to your account manager about relationship pricing!
-
I think the answer is, in the rare circumstance that SIP / T.38 is working perfectly, you would not change. We have big customers doing tons of faxing and they desperately need this solution because they can't get SIP / T.38 to an acceptable failure rate.
If you have an ideal setup - modern fax machine, fiber internet, correctly configured ATA (which is, by far, the biggest problem we've had - people just won't read the guides thoroughly), your expected failure rate is about 8% on a T.38 ATA. For small offices who send/receive a fax once in a couple of months, this is a fine solution.
HTTPS ATAs only fail when the party on the other end of the fax fails; which makes them at least as reliable as traditional POTS lines. They are probably more reliable because we will retry the fax 9 times before failing it. So if you need near 100% reliability, you need to use the HTTPS ATAs.
The reason we are charging monthly for the ATAs is because that is how we are charged for them. We have to buy software for these things to work, and its expensive. Most of our competitors who offer HTTPS ATAs charge north of $15/mo.
