Hi all,
Just in case if anyone will be interested in BroadTel UPA-1, a USB to FXS
adapter embedded with SIP softphone. Product specification is as follows:
Hardware:
USB to RJ11 FXS adapter
1 USB port, for computer connection
1 RJ-11 FXS, for phone connection
Dimension (L x W x H): 53 x 15 x 28
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, BroadTel wrote:
Hi all,
Just in case if anyone will be interested in *REDACTED*, a USB to FXS
adapter embedded with SIP softphone. Product specification is as follows:
Please refer to the fifth and sixth words of the title of this mailing list.
To everyone else, I
On 05/24/2011 11:35 AM, A J Stiles wrote:
Someone asked about the quality of it, he was quoting the hardware specs
of a similar device.
I doubt magicjack publishes that kind of detail about theirs.
so where is the problem ? Its irrelevant he represents that device
commercially.
On
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, jon pounder wrote:
On 05/24/2011 11:35 AM, A J Stiles wrote:
Someone asked about the quality of it, he was quoting the hardware specs
of a similar device.
No they didn't. The original message to which the spammer was pretending to
reply (and in the wrong place,
On 05/24/2011 11:57 AM, A J Stiles wrote:
On Tuesday 24 May 2011, jon pounder wrote:
On 05/24/2011 11:35 AM, A J Stiles wrote:
Someone asked about the quality of it, he was quoting the hardware specs
of a similar device.
No they didn't. The original message to which the spammer was
On 05/24/2011 11:35 AM, A J Stiles wrote:
No they didn't. The original message to which the spammer was
pretending to reply (and in the wrong place, even) never existed in the
first place.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Rubenstein...
My archives
On 11-05-24 01:21 PM, Steve Edwards wrote:
If it take the OP (of this thread) 3 years to reply, what does that say about
their product support?
Par for the course? :)
Leif.
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
Steve Edwards wrote:
My archives don't go back that far
Mine do.
No match on Jack, magic or itntelecom.com
mailto:c.savinov...@itntelecom.com
Doug
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Doug Lytle supp...@drdos.info wrote:
Steve Edwards wrote:
My archives don't go back that far
Mine do.
No match on Jack, magic or itntelecom.com mailto:
c.savinov...@itntelecom.com
Doug
Warren Selby wrote:
A quick google for magicjack quality C. Savinovich
Interesting, it would appear that my archives are incomplete.
Doug
--
Ben Franklin quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--
On 05/24/2011 02:45 PM, Warren Selby wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Doug Lytle supp...@drdos.info
mailto:supp...@drdos.info wrote:
Steve Edwards wrote:
My archives don't go back that far
Mine do.
No match on Jack, magic or itntelecom.com http://itntelecom.com
Steve Underwood wrote:
You might think a standard phone plugged into an adaptor, like a
Magic-jack, would be limited to narrow band voice, as that is all the
phone was designed for. It turns out most phones only aggressively
filter at the low end of the band. They let a lot of energy above
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
You might think a standard phone plugged into an adaptor, like a
Magic-jack, would be limited to narrow band voice, as that is all the
phone was designed for. It turns out most phones only aggressively
filter at the low end of the band.
On 7/17/08, Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is certainly true. Many of the comments people make about codecs
owe more to the phone than the codec. However, there are various types
of impairment. Even a phone which doesn't sound nearly as good as it
could in G.711 mode may
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kristian
Kielhofner
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2008 11:35 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
On 7/17/08, Steve Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is certainly true. Many of the comments
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:34:30AM -0400, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
Could someone please explain to me why business desk phones are so
expensive? I'm not knocking my friends over at Polycom, Snom, or any
other manufacturer but in some cases you can buy a cheap but usable
laptop for less
Dean Collins wrote:
1/ RD costs v's number of units manafactured per annum.
The only business phone I ever contributed to had a run rate of about
500K/annum and a production life of multiple years (not sure how many it
lasted for). I put some (at the time) exotic DSP into a high end
-users] MagicJack quality
Steve Underwood wrote:
You might think a standard phone plugged into an adaptor, like a
Magic-jack, would be limited to narrow band voice, as that is all the
phone was designed for. It turns out most phones only aggressively
filter at the low end of the band
On July 17, 2008 11:44:07 am Dean Collins wrote:
1/ RD costs v's number of units manafactured per annum.
That's bullshit; There are many more office phones than office desktops out
there, and the research has been paid for many times over. Think of how long
the Meridian 1 has been around.
Anthony Francis wrote:
Steve Underwood wrote:
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:26:24AM +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:26:24AM +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:26:06 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
As Michael Graves points out, people will hack it to run on thin
clients and why not virtual machines with very limited access? Maybe
an AP with a USB port and OpenWRT or something?
Since it needs to run their app it's probablly limited to
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:26:06 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
As Michael Graves points out, people will hack it to run on thin
clients and why not virtual machines with very limited access? Maybe
an AP with a USB port and
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:37AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:26:06 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
As Michael Graves points out, people will hack it to run on thin
clients and why not virtual
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:37AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:26:06 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
As Michael Graves points
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:52:21AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 09:54:37AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls (softphones)
could have and advantage over hardphones, provided there is a parameter
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:13:15 -0400, C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls (softphones)
could have and
Good light codecs like speex, and minimal feature sets.
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls
Not sure about magicjack but skype has supernodes that play a large
part in how the system works well.
http://geemodo.blogspot.com/2006/10/dont-be-skype-supernode-or-how-not-to.html
Thanks,
Steve T
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Anthony Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good light codecs like
PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:13:15 -0400, C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls (softphones)
could have and advantage over hardphones, provided there is a parameter
, and I
am a naturally very curious *technical* fellow.
CS
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Greco
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:41 PM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
I am puzzled
, 2008 5:41 PM
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:28:09 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't see Magicjack being around long. The business model isn't
sustainable without tons of ads, and even then, people will either
ignore them if they are audio or if they are popups, they will simply
close them or disable them.
I might
List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
I don't see Magicjack being around long. The business model isn't
sustainable without tons of ads, and even then, people will either
ignore them if they are audio or if they are popups, they will simply
close them
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Totaro
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:28 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MagicJack quality
I don't see Magicjack being around long
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls (softphones)
could have and advantage over hardphones, provided
Steve Underwood wrote:
C. Savinovich wrote:
I am puzzled by the quality of magicjack. I keep trying to figure out how
they can the quality be that adequate. Since Skype also has an excellent
quality, that leaves me to believe that software based calls (softphones)
could have and
40 matches
Mail list logo
