Read the forum guidelines
THIS POST WOULD PROBABLY APPLY TO ANYONE HAVING A PHONE SYSTEM IN THEIR HOME. MINE IS A PANASONIC KX TA624 WHICH HAS WORKED FINE FOR 10 YEAR. COX GIVES ME THREE INCOMING PHONE NUMBERS (TRUNK LINES) AND THE PHONE SYSTEM (SWITCH) SERVES IT OUT TO 16 PHONE STATIONS IN DIFFERENT ROOMS AND LOCATIONS. EACH PHONE SHOWS ALL THREE LINES SO YOU CAN PICKUP IN ANY ROOM, AND THE PHONES HAVE CONFERENCE CALLING, INTERCOM INCLUDING FRONT AND REAR DOOR, AND MANY OTHER FEATURES.
NOW I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT I MUST INSTALL THE DPQ3212 FOR MY PHONE SERVICE - I WILL NEED TWO UNITS BECAUSE THEY ONLY HANDLE 2 LINES PER MODEM - AND I MAY GET CUTOFF ANY DAY NOW BASED ON MY LOCATION.
NOBODY AT COX CAN TELL ME (SO FAR) IF THE OUTPUTS LINES OF THE DPQ3212 ARE COMPATIBLE WITH MY PANASONIC INPUTS SO THAT WE CAN JUST PLUG THEM IN OR WHETHER MY WHOLE SYSTEM GOES DOWN WITH NO SOLUTION IN SIGHT. THE TECHNICIAN WHO CAME OUT THE FIRST TIME TO INSTALL THE MODEM STOPPED THE INSTALL AND SAID IT WOULDN'T WORK WITH MY PANASONIC.
I TALKED TO RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT SEVERAL TIMES AND WAS LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR SOLUTION WAS TOSS MY PANASONIC AND CONNECT UP A COUPLE OF PHONES IN A ROOM OF MY CHOICE - ONE PHONE FOR EACH OF THREE INCOMING LINES AND BE SURE TO REMAIN IN THE ROOM THAT I WANT TO USE TO ANSWER THE PHONE.
JUNK MY PANASONIC AND 16 STATIONS I'M CURRENTLY USING AND GIVE UP ALL OF THE FEATURES WE USE.
I SPOKE TO COX BUSINESS AND THEY SAID THEY DO NOT HAVE A SOLUTION FOR ME TO GET THE SAME FEATURES USING THE RESIDENTIAL NETWORK. THEY HAVE OTHER NETWORKS AVAILABLE ON BUSINESS LOCATIONS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ON RESIDENTIAL.
1. CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHETHER IT'S TRUE THAT THE DPQ3212 AND THE PANASONIC WILL NOT PLAY NICE TOGETHER?
2. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE LEFT BEFORE MY WHOLE SERVICE SHUTS DOWN?
3. CAN ANYONE SUGGEST WHAT TO DO IF #1 ABOVE DOESN'T WORK?
I HAVE AN ADDITONAL QUESTION AFTER READING HUNDREDS OF POSTS AND GUIDES IT APPEARS THAT THE PHONE JACKS ON THE BACK OF THE DPQ3212 ARE REGULAR PHONE JACK CONNECTIONS. THEY'RE ALWAYS DESCRIBED AS CONNECTING TO EXISTING PHONE CABLES IN THE HOUSE OR DIRECTLY TO A PHONE.
NOW I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN BUT IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE 3 LINES I HAVE CURRENTLY COMING IN FROM OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WHERE THE CURRENT MODEM IS LOCATED IN A UTILITY CLOSET, PLUGS DIRECTLY INTO MY PHONE SYSTEM (PANASONIC) AND THOSE MUST ALSO BE STANDARD PHONE LINES BECAUSE THEY COULD JUST AS WELL BYPASS MY PHONE SYSTEM AND GO DIRECTLY TO ONE OR MORE PHONES RIGHT?
SO IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IF I GET TWO DPQs I WOULD HAVE MY THREE LINES COMING IN AND COULD PLUG THE PHONE JACKS ON THE BACK DIRECTLY INTO MY PHONE SYSTEM TRUNK LINES SAME AS CURRENT AND EVERYTHING SHOULD WORK THE SAME?
ANYONE KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE?
And by the way...FCC part 68 says that any service provider of services must conform to the standards. Those who make equipment to connect must also adhere and get their equipment certified (it turns out there are 4 ways equipment can harm the network so these are also a part of the standards - "the 4 harms") but if you're a COX and have delegated authority from the phone company to offer phone services, then you have to meet those standards and in one way that's very simple - you have to give the customer one or more CO LINES that are standard and work with their equipment including phones and yes, phone systems. The Panasonic KX TA624 is a registered and certified piece of equipment that is fully compliant with the CO LINE standards. If you're a delegated phone company and you don't give me standard CO LINES that work, you have to fix that. Now I'm not an expert and all I know comes from reading a very painful 440 page Panasonic manual and an even more painful FCC regulations site with 1000+ pages so if I'm misstating something, please be kind but by all means correct me.
So meanwhile the equipment used in the NIU is obsolete and cannot be maintained so COX has to change it and has been trying to do that since 2012. Replacing the NIU so that they can get parts to do that is one driver while putting in a better network is another (the "digital" network) So here comes the DPQ3212 modem which should take the new digital network signals and convert them to the FCC part 68 standard so it can talk to all of your equipment which is also compliant including your phones and your (that's right) Panasonic phone system. It just has to give you a standard CO LINE just like you got before.
Now if your equipment is FCC Part 68 compliant and chances are since it's been operating OK for many years it is, then there is no basis for COX, the delegated phone service company, to hook up something new, take down your phone system, and then tell you it's your equipment. Suddenly we see that we're going to have to put a lot of faith in the DPQ3212.
So now we've laid out the story for the simple home user and next I'll post the outcome of the installation.
What I am saying is that your phone services provider (in this case COX) is required to provide phone connections that comply with FCC p68. Those CO LINES are standard and should plug and play with any equipment - phones or switches/PBX/KSU that is registered and certified by FCC p68. (like the Panasonic KX TA624. And all of the modems they install whether one or two are paid by them not me. They must take their digital network and convert it to something I can use - ie. the standard CO LINES.
I appreciate the suggestion of the Google Voice Adapter. I'm trying to read and understand what that is. It seems that I'm not as technical about available solutions - never had to worry about this stuff and don't have the background for it. But having two installers come out and tell me the DPQ3212s won't work with my Panasonic made me step back a little. I'm having to play catchup because understanding this stuff is not my field and internet searching takes time for education purposes.
It appears you're saying the two lines that come out of the Google Voice Adapter are the same as CO Lines and I can plug them into my KSU. So that means I have a VOIP service provider working via my internet connection that's now giving me phone service - I would need two boxes to get three lines - and then I just need to shut down COX phone services which means I loose voicemail from Cox along with integration into my TV system and just pick that up from the VOIP provider.
I do have an alarm system connected to one of my phone lines out at the NIU so I would have to get that connected somewhere else.
Ok, so you were only saying Cox has to make it so people don't have to buy special phones or anything to use their service. My point is no where in there does it say a ISP has to provider a certain number of lines.
Michael2062 said:I do have an alarm system connected to one of my phone lines out at the NIU so I would have to get that connected somewhere else.
That might be tricky. Do you have any phone lines running out that way that you could connect to your Panasonic?
I think what is causing the main problem is Residental Installers don't have experiance with mini PBX's like your. They assume it's a digital PBX that uses ethernet and digital phone lines, which it is not. However I think that is what is causing the knee jerk reaction. If you just ask them to install 3 phone lines into one room, they should be able to do it no sweat.
No other phones lines but once they put in the two modems next week the alarm connection should still be active because they're going to feed the modems right into the box outside the house where the old NIU dropped out the three lines. So unless the alarm system can't handle something about the new lines, I should be OK (I've read a few posts where old alarm system has a problem) So we'll see.
I'm sure that you're right. The COX guy alluded to that as well. He has installed several houses with Panasonics and no problem so he said the installer (they are outside contractors by the way) were just trying to avoid the unknown and had no experience with it. Of course you can see why they would be leery - if the phone system doesn't work when you convert, you can't go back. You're dead and the only thing you have left is to point the finger at Panasonic.
Michael2062 said:they're going to feed the modems right into the box outside the house where the old NIU dropped out the three lines.
I found a post that talks about what you are talking about. See full post here.
" With the old wiring, the line went from the demarc to the alarm panel which would have a RJ-31 jack. The line would go into the alarm system on pins 4 and 5, and come back out on pins 1 and 8 to return to the house wiring connections by the demarc. By moving the demarc to the modem, wiring for the alarm would need to go on a dedicated pair from the modem back out to the old demarc, then to the alarm and house wiring as before. "
I just don't understand how there is still a phone demarc AFTER they remove the NIU. A box with a RJ-31 jack in it? What is the box outside that it goes through? Sounds like they did everything right, I am just trying to better understand the solution. As you can see, most telephone technicians just don't have the experience for this kind of thing. You are kind of in the middle of having better phone equipment then your average user, but without the IT support of a big business. Thanks for taking the time to document the solution.
Does that mean this thread can be marked resolved? Have you tested everything?
HI Michael, As promised, I'll follow you here while I wait for any response from a Cox network weenie. The FCC part 68 analogy discussed here is sufficient for describing the need for compatibility between different pieces of equipment connected together, though it mostly addresses electrical safety, and "do not harm the Network" B.S. It does also address that each piece of equipment connected to a carrier's network that IS "FCC PART68,, TYPE ACCEPTED" meets certain requirements. What you and I hope is the scope of those requirements includes performance between your switch and Cox's 3212 derived dialtone from the back of the E-mTAs. If Panasonic says that a nominal loop start dialtone line should work with their switch, then Cox, in my opinion is obligated to provide industry standard 'dialtone' as specified in the Bellcore GRs. Besides PT68, the GRs define all the esoteric things like response to switch-hook flash intervals, DTMF freq stability, leakage across T-R when on hook, before going off hook, and the list goes on and on. What's important for you is "why Shouldn't it work", and Why Won't COX comply with the GRs, or failing that "What's my work-around"?
Like you, I'm still learning where to ask Cox People these questions, and so far I'm still asking. You can see what I'm up against in my separate inquirey regarding my 3212 and the way it is mis-behaving with my old Uniden DECT2080 wireless phones.
Tech Characteristics for Cox Dialtone
Apologies!! I hadn't seen your post on my thread that your Panasonic is working with the new lines. I hope that's still the case, along with the alarm dialer and life is good, Telephone wise. You're in excellent hands with dward5665. I have a few RJ-36 Alarm dialer tee-shirts in my closet from back in the day, as well!! Thanks to all of you who I am learning from in this brave ( for me ) new Cox world. I just couldn't take it any longer from "Kermit"
I can't really comment on all the technical detail in your post. What I think I know is how Cox works and how I eventually got their attention to prevent all the bad things I had heard about from installers and people online with problems. I got a tech out to look at my setup and then him speak to his supervisor onsite about the potential problems of the installation with my Panasonic. His supervisor selected an expert who had installed a lot of upgrades and some with Panasonics. This was someone who knew the technical details of why most installations with switches failed. But after talking to them I would say that's where they stop - they operate at the PT68 level and I really doubt that their field forces know the detail you're talking about or could be helpful in troubleshooting an issue with your Uniden. It takes a lot of work to get their best resources but your issue in my view is a design and engineering issue like this: (1) Does the Uniden really and actually comply with everything PT68? Does it really comply with any other standards? (2) have the modems you have been connected correctly? (3) Do they have a good ground connection and does the Uniden have a good ground connection? (I believe the CO pairs are send and receive that rely on a ground to stabilize their signal, so anything not right about grounding and the system becomes unstable on signaling). (4) do the new modems have a marginal RF signal? Cox can measure that from anywhere and of course if RF signal is low, then funny things start to happen.
I just don't see Cox helping with this very much - having installed thousands of modems and a variety of equipment that works, and having no choice about installing the new modems, they just don't have any choice but to shine on the outliers.
I will share something interesting about the new phone system operation. I don't quite know how to explain it yet but my suspicion is that it has to do with packet switching. We have noted several times on calls to people with cell phones within the US, that after placing a call and reaching them, perhaps with 2 minutes and still during the call, the called party received 1 or more calls from our same phone line. They see the caller ID come up and the typical cell phone response IGNORE OR JOIN OR HOLD and once they have IGNORED it a few seconds later another call comes in - same caller ID. Now you could say that our phone system is generating redials but we have 3 COs and we've tried several. I tried to duplicate the problem using my own cell and calling from my house phone and it wouldn't duplicate. You see why I'm thinking packet switching? the internet is the only place where in theory you can get duplicate packets like echos but of course that's not supposed to be possible.
Hi Michael, I suspect you're right, as far as how hard Cox will work to fix. I'm glad you were able to get the right resources to get you up and running trouble free. I may have to replace the Uniden's. No great loss if I do. For the time being I'm committed to getting my setup to 'play' with Cox's stuff, and see how it works. The bigger issue is the totally weird behavior with several different IVR's around the Country.
I started to reply in the dedicated thread you started for this. I Hadn't seen the additional information regarding identical Caller_ID data. I also pulled up the User manual for your switch, and if you you have the SMDR enabled, you should easily be able to rule out any Panasonic-related smoking gun caused second calls. This swings us back to my premise that the Network is suspect, as you have speculated. Let's assume you only originated one physical call from your equipment ( proven). I agree, then it can only be that the Network takes your calling digit information and generates a second call, on it's own to the called party. EGADS! simultaneous calling as opposed to simultaneous ringing! The only kicker here is there is no known reason to create such a scenario, whether a fluke, or a system defined feature. Regrettably I don't have an inside view of Cox's Tel. net, and their technology has morphed from the switches and Trunking/Signaling they used back in the 90's / early 2000's, when I retired from the industry -- Not a Cox Company. We terminated lots of trunks from us to them. The packet switching angle is very intriguing, in that It "COULD" be the basis of a second call being created within Cox's ( or another provider's on the called side)network, and of course accessing the traditional analog net after being handed off so that the called party's net sees it as a second call. The only thing driving me crazy is why would Cox feel compelled to set up the second attempt, unless their net does not believe the first call cut through? But even there normal call handling rules usually would cause the call (assumed) fail to time out, and you might (should) receive 'fast-busy'. There are still call set up rules that Cox's net would have traceable records of, but this scenario is so unusual, that network ops troops might have to set up 'break points' in the network to trap when it happened. I'll have to think about this as to how you might get support and get the information needed to plead your case so a really sharp and curious / motivated Network ops tech would be chomping at the bit to tackle this issue. Perhaps the best thing to do is work with one of the folks who experienced this with you. As to the non-reproducibles, look at cell networks / providers / any detail that might provide clues. ( where the fail happens, where it doesn't)
Whether the called party is on a traditional network or being supplied by a voip provider like Vonage. The call setup, and command and control is different, but based on the early Telephony Standards, updated for the new technology now in the network, and again sharp network analysts can and should have tools to help trap on the scenario when it happens. There may also be capabilities where they log (even if only for a short time) when calls are set up, and if they could correlate your SINGLE request into the network, resulting in their DOUBLE request to the called party, it will give them where to look. This could be some sort of weird interaction between cox, and another network provider, and this is happening on the 'other guy's' turf. That might go to why you cannot duplicate. Holy Moly what a good trouble!!
The one thing that keeps coming back is somewhere a explicit apparently valid command is sent to create a second call path to the called party, at a different time than the first path, and the network treats this request exactly as it should - an asynchronous call event handled by call waiting ( or the cell equivalent ). Now arguably, I'm treating this like a Hybrid call; part Digital VOIP(Normal cox dialtone) Cox side, and Part analog traditional Telco side on the called party, even if a cell user. If your called party is, somehow purely digital, and the rules for voice path creation are not traditional Telephony based, then anything's possible!