|
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
16.10.2008 14:48 |
|
Dia
Premium Account
 
Registration Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 1443
 |
|
|
16.10.2008 18:58 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
RE: Calling standard extensions from digital receptionist |
 |
We have people who are in the same department - eg finance department - but are geographically separate - some use standard extensions on a standard switchboard and some use internet phones connected to pbxes. We have an incoming did number for accounts. At the moment the digital receptionist answers and announces each choice to the caller. If the caller chooses to speak to somebody who has an internet phone, then they are put straight through. If the caller chooses somebody who has an ordinary phone extension, then the caller is put through to the ordinary switchboard and has to choose again to finally speak to the person they want to speak to. We would like the whole thing to be seamless - not depending on whether or not the callee is using an internet phone or an ordinary extension on a standard telephone switchboard.
Basically, across our organisation, we have a mixture of internet phones and standard extensions through standard switchboards. We would like all users to be seamlessly integrated - whether they have an internet phone through pbxes - or a standard extension on a switchboard. That way we can gradually expand our use of pbxes - rather than having to change every user at the same time. Indeed, for various reasons, it may never be appropriate to introduce internet phones everywhere - eg in some countries in which we operate, the internet is not entirely reliable. I agree it is possible to route through to a switchboard and then ask the caller to choose again. However, most people find the idea of having to make multiple choices in order to get through to the person they want to speak to, annoying.
I guess what is needed... and I don't know if this is possible... is for pbxes to recognise when a switchboard has been answered, and only then send the rest of the number dialed (ie the extension number). I thought that this is in effect what using the "w" character would do - by putting in a pause. Unfortunately this does not seem to work at all through digital receptionist and only sometimes in other cases..
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by met on 17.10.2008 at 09:33.
|
|
17.10.2008 09:22 |
|
Dia
Premium Account
 
Registration Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 1443
 |
|
|
17.10.2008 18:22 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
17.10.2008 21:20 |
|
i-p
Super Moderator
   
Registration Date: 14.01.2006
Posts: 4815
 |
|
|
18.10.2008 15:06 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
18.10.2008 21:48 |
|
i-p
Super Moderator
   
Registration Date: 14.01.2006
Posts: 4815
 |
|
|
18.10.2008 22:04 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
18.10.2008 22:43 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
19.10.2008 09:13 |
|
Dia
Premium Account
 
Registration Date: 03.03.2006
Posts: 1443
 |
|
Regarding the E90 DTMF setting, get rid of the Inband DTMF. Leave only the OutOfBand setting and ensure it is set to RFC2833. No SIP Info either if you can remove that too.
In essence with both settings on, the SIP stack creates double or triple digits for every key pressed. So the PBXes DTMF detection routine has a hard time recognizing what key was pressed.
Personally I would also edit the "dtmfmode" in the extension setup to RFC2833 only, to avoid the double digit detection.
Regarding the SPA-9[46]x IP phones, there is known issue with double DTMF digit generation, which does not exist on the SPA ATAs, since they have an extra setting controlling DTMF generation in their web interface, which is curiously missing from the web interface of the SPA-9[46]x IP phones.
I have notified the program manager of the whole SPA IP phone line last April, but the bug has not been addressed yet, even on the latest 6.1.3(a) firmware version for the SPA-962 phone. I have followed up with him regarding this issue last week, so it can hopefully be included in the 6.1.3 beta version.
We will see if it is fixed permanently this time. I haven't found a reliable work-around so far.
|
|
19.10.2008 19:18 |
|
met
Registration Date: 01.01.1970
Posts:
 |
|
|
20.10.2008 09:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|