ADSL and PABX ....

Can someone confirm that i'm not making a numpty assumption in saying
that ADSL doesn't work thru PABX? I've brainfarted and just want to make
sure...

BT Sales, incidentally, had no idea what a PABX was .... "because we
don't use one of those", came the reply.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:46:02 -0000, Tx2 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Can someone confirm that i'm not making a numpty assumption in saying
>that ADSL doesn't work thru PABX? I've brainfarted and just want to make
>sure...
>
>BT Sales, incidentally, had no idea what a PABX was .... "because we
>don't use one of those", came the reply.

There are not enough facts here to give a definative answer but because you are using the term PABX
[Private Automatic Branch Exchange], then it might be fair to assume that you are using a number of
analogue lines for your telephone service. Consequently any one of those incoming lines could be
used to feed your exchange and provide an ADSL service.

However it would perhapd be wise not to do so as at some time you may upgrade to a switch [the term
now used to describe a small automated exchange] and at such time convert the lines to ISDN to gain
the full features of the equipment.. You would want to retain your numbers in the changeover over
to ISDN which would mean that the ADSL service would be lost. So you will then have to order a new
analogue line with ADSL provision for your Internet connection. Plane ahead and avoid that
complication with probably quite a few days, if not weeks, of not having a Broadband service.

Have a dedicate analogue line for the ADSL service, although this could also support REDCARE and/or
a fax machine.

David Bradley

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:46:02 -0000, Tx2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
> Can someone confirm that i'm not making a numpty assumption in saying
> that ADSL doesn't work thru PABX? I've brainfarted and just want to make
> sure...
>
> BT Sales, incidentally, had no idea what a PABX was .... "because we
> don't use one of those", came the reply.

Hi,

If you are referring to a BT Installed/Managed PABX then no, you wouldn't
be able to get ADSL on the line.

With Regards,

Dave,
--
| Dave Tomlinson Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a David Bradley says...


> There are not enough facts here to give a definative answer but because you are using the term PABX
> [Private Automatic Branch Exchange], then it might be fair to assume that you are using a number of
> analogue lines for your telephone service. Consequently any one of those incoming lines could be
> used to feed your exchange and provide an ADSL service.

There's actually 2 incoming analogue lines, each having its own separate
BT number.

One of the lines was originally used as an 'independent' FAX number, but
some numpty has seemingly since wired it thru the PABX[1] type system.

ADSL has been activated on this number because BT's records show it as
being just a POTS standard number ... but of course, as it goes thru the
PABX system within the building, it isn't quite the case.

I'm no telephone engineer, so the person in question is contacting their
local agent to [hopefully] rewire it back how it was, i.e. one analogue
number going into PABX, one analogue number independent of it.

[1] it may not be PABX, I know little enough about telecom terminology
to be sure, but the current setup is such that the office can have 3
incoming/outgoing calls simultaneously at present, although when the
newly dedicated ADSL line is rewired, they will only have 2 of course,
the 3rd being a POTS line again.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:04:50 -0000, Tx2 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a David Bradley says...
>
>
>> There are not enough facts here to give a definative answer but because you are using the term PABX
>> [Private Automatic Branch Exchange], then it might be fair to assume that you are using a number of
>> analogue lines for your telephone service. Consequently any one of those incoming lines could be
>> used to feed your exchange and provide an ADSL service.
>
>There's actually 2 incoming analogue lines, each having its own separate
>BT number.

Don't you actually mean 3 incoming analogue lines?
>
>One of the lines was originally used as an 'independent' FAX number, but
>some numpty has seemingly since wired it thru the PABX[1] type system.

Seems reasonable enough as presumably there is also an outlet socket from the "exchange" with that
dedicated number to service the fax machine. By taking this number through the "exchange" you have
made that number available for greater use.
>
>ADSL has been activated on this number because BT's records show it as
>being just a POTS standard number ... but of course, as it goes thru the
>PABX system within the building, it isn't quite the case.

Your statement implies is that the "exchange" is not managed by anyone other than on an ad-hoc
basis. What readers, and I, don't know is whether the "exchange" is hard wired with the analogue
lines or each terminates with a BT supplied Master Socket with each number then feed into the
"exchange".

Please give us all the bigger picture of what you have and maybe we can come up with a solution that
is to your best advantage.
>
>I'm no telephone engineer, so the person in question is contacting their
>local agent to [hopefully] rewire it back how it was, i.e. one analogue
>number going into PABX, one analogue number independent of it.
>
>[1] it may not be PABX, I know little enough about telecom terminology
>to be sure, but the current setup is such that the office can have 3
>incoming/outgoing calls simultaneously at present, although when the
>newly dedicated ADSL line is rewired, they will only have 2 of course,
>the 3rd being a POTS line again.

David Bradley

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:04:50 -0000, Tx2
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a David Bradley says...
>
>
>> There are not enough facts here to give a definative answer but because you are using the term PABX
>> [Private Automatic Branch Exchange], then it might be fair to assume that you are using a number of
>> analogue lines for your telephone service. Consequently any one of those incoming lines could be
>> used to feed your exchange and provide an ADSL service.
>
>There's actually 2 incoming analogue lines, each having its own separate
>BT number.
>
>One of the lines was originally used as an 'independent' FAX number, but
>some numpty has seemingly since wired it thru the PABX[1] type system.
>
>ADSL has been activated on this number because BT's records show it as
>being just a POTS standard number ... but of course, as it goes thru the
>PABX system within the building, it isn't quite the case.
>
>I'm no telephone engineer, so the person in question is contacting their
>local agent to [hopefully] rewire it back how it was, i.e. one analogue
>number going into PABX, one analogue number independent of it.
>
>[1] it may not be PABX, I know little enough about telecom terminology
>to be sure, but the current setup is such that the office can have 3
>incoming/outgoing calls simultaneously at present, although when the
>newly dedicated ADSL line is rewired, they will only have 2 of course,
>the 3rd being a POTS line again.

As long as BT sees it as POTS and not PBX (BT terminology - different
to PABX!) then you can just unwire it from the PABX and request ADSL
service over it.

BT's PBX service uses standard copper pairs to carry each line, but I
believe it's jumpered differenly at the exchange - i.e. you have one
master number and the other numbers are slaved off it so that if the
master number is engaged the call cascades onto the next available
line. But you can still ring each line independently on its own
assigned number.

You can't put ADSL onto a PBX line because the ADSL line has to be
connected to the DSLAM at the exchange, which is independent to (and
therefore incompatible with) the PBX system. I once asked BT if they
could take the PSTN part from the DSLAM back to the PBX system - they
said no.

HTH

Jake

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a David Bradley says...


> Please give us all the bigger picture of what you have and maybe we can come up with a solution that
> is to your best advantage.

V V V V V

> >I'm no telephone engineer

"Muxton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:04:50 -0000, Tx2
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>(E-Mail Removed), a.k.a David Bradley says...
>>
>>
>>> There are not enough facts here to give a definative answer but because
>>> you are using the term PABX
>>> [Private Automatic Branch Exchange], then it might be fair to assume
>>> that you are using a number of
>>> analogue lines for your telephone service. Consequently any one of
>>> those incoming lines could be
>>> used to feed your exchange and provide an ADSL service.
>>
>>There's actually 2 incoming analogue lines, each having its own separate
>>BT number.
>>
>>One of the lines was originally used as an 'independent' FAX number, but
>>some numpty has seemingly since wired it thru the PABX[1] type system.
>>
>>ADSL has been activated on this number because BT's records show it as
>>being just a POTS standard number ... but of course, as it goes thru the
>>PABX system within the building, it isn't quite the case.
>>
>>I'm no telephone engineer, so the person in question is contacting their
>>local agent to [hopefully] rewire it back how it was, i.e. one analogue
>>number going into PABX, one analogue number independent of it.
>>
>>[1] it may not be PABX, I know little enough about telecom terminology
>>to be sure, but the current setup is such that the office can have 3
>>incoming/outgoing calls simultaneously at present, although when the
>>newly dedicated ADSL line is rewired, they will only have 2 of course,
>>the 3rd being a POTS line again.
>
> As long as BT sees it as POTS and not PBX (BT terminology - different
> to PABX!) then you can just unwire it from the PABX and request ADSL
> service over it.
>
> BT's PBX service uses standard copper pairs to carry each line, but I
> believe it's jumpered differenly at the exchange - i.e. you have one
> master number and the other numbers are slaved off it so that if the
> master number is engaged the call cascades onto the next available
> line. But you can still ring each line independently on its own
> assigned number.
>
> You can't put ADSL onto a PBX line because the ADSL line has to be
> connected to the DSLAM at the exchange, which is independent to (and
> therefore incompatible with) the PBX system. I once asked BT if they
> could take the PSTN part from the DSLAM back to the PBX system - they
> said no.
>
> HTH
>
> Jake
>

They could if they put there minds to it DSL just requires 2 copper wires
(it might be one but i'm a switch tech not a DSL engineer)..... A hunt group
as described above could be made on any lines... theyre just pots its just
how you do your datafill....

Call me a hypocrite i think they just don't fancy it ....

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:21:16 GMT, "John Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
<snip>
>>
>> As long as BT sees it as POTS and not PBX (BT terminology - different
>> to PABX!) then you can just unwire it from the PABX and request ADSL
>> service over it.
>>
>> BT's PBX service uses standard copper pairs to carry each line, but I
>> believe it's jumpered differenly at the exchange - i.e. you have one
>> master number and the other numbers are slaved off it so that if the
>> master number is engaged the call cascades onto the next available
>> line. But you can still ring each line independently on its own
>> assigned number.
>>
>> You can't put ADSL onto a PBX line because the ADSL line has to be
>> connected to the DSLAM at the exchange, which is independent to (and
>> therefore incompatible with) the PBX system. I once asked BT if they
>> could take the PSTN part from the DSLAM back to the PBX system - they
>> said no.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Jake
>>
>
>They could if they put there minds to it DSL just requires 2 copper wires
>(it might be one but i'm a switch tech not a DSL engineer)..... A hunt group
>as described above could be made on any lines... theyre just pots its just
>how you do your datafill....
>
>Call me a hypocrite i think they just don't fancy it ....
>

Well, yes they could, but no they don't. That's the impression I got
when I tried to get them to do it anyway.

Could be something to do with keeping the exchanges wired in a neat
and orderly fashion, maybe. Any BT engineers present care to comment?

Jake

"Muxton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:21:16 GMT, "John Smith"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> As long as BT sees it as POTS and not PBX (BT terminology - different
>>> to PABX!) then you can just unwire it from the PABX and request ADSL
>>> service over it.
>>>
>>> BT's PBX service uses standard copper pairs to carry each line, but I
>>> believe it's jumpered differenly at the exchange - i.e. you have one
>>> master number and the other numbers are slaved off it so that if the
>>> master number is engaged the call cascades onto the next available
>>> line. But you can still ring each line independently on its own
>>> assigned number.
>>>
>>> You can't put ADSL onto a PBX line because the ADSL line has to be
>>> connected to the DSLAM at the exchange, which is independent to (and
>>> therefore incompatible with) the PBX system. I once asked BT if they
>>> could take the PSTN part from the DSLAM back to the PBX system - they
>>> said no.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Jake
>>>
>>
>>They could if they put there minds to it DSL just requires 2 copper
>>wires
>>(it might be one but i'm a switch tech not a DSL engineer)..... A hunt
>>group
>>as described above could be made on any lines... theyre just pots its just
>>how you do your datafill....
>>
>>Call me a hypocrite i think they just don't fancy it ....
>>
>
> Well, yes they could, but no they don't. That's the impression I got
> when I tried to get them to do it anyway.
>
> Could be something to do with keeping the exchanges wired in a neat
> and orderly fashion, maybe. Any BT engineers present care to comment?
>
> Jake
>

Just set aside a small part of the frame call it "whatever wierd stuff
please check the records, thankyou for calling"

I dunno i'd go for that route lol