randall@sidd.sandiego.ncr.com (Randall Rathbun) (09/07/90)
Has anyone encountered this problem? One of our users plugged their
Panasonic KX-T2355 Easa-phone into our Rolm single line phone jack on
our Rolm 9000-II CBX system. They called to complain that they
couldn't hear anyone.
Upon investigation, it appears that the impedance of this phone is too
high, causing low volume in the handset. Plugging in the regular Rolm
flashphone showed all the hardware functioning normally. We took the
Panasonic apart, hoping to find a volume control, but all we saw was a
small pot titled VR2. Playing with it made no discernable difference
in volume.
Has anyone worked with different vendor telephones upon Rolm
equipment, and can advise us on what to do? The user wants to keep his
autodial buttons, speakerphone capabilities, etc., and really doesn't
want to give up his Panasonic phone. Any ideas? Thanks for all
suggestions.
You may email to randall.rathbun@SanDiego.NCR.COM if you like (no
space between San & Diego please). Hope to hear from you!
NCR E & M - San Diego | INTERNET - Randall.Rathbun@SanDiego.NCR.COM
16550 W Bernardo Drive | UUCP - {backbone}!ncr-sd!thor!randall
San Diego, CA 92127 | TELE # - (USA) (619) 485-3620 or 2358matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) (09/15/90)
In-Reply-To: message from randall@sidd.sandiego.ncr.com First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I have many friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed and it is a pain in the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. I know people who before Rolm to dial a operator you would dial '0' , but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0. Also, I thought that 'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network. Pro-Graphics BBS 908/469-0049 ....UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin@nosc.mil Internet: matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com
goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (09/17/90)
In article <12142@accuvax.nwu.edu>, matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin) writes... >First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I have many >friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed and it is a pain in >the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. I know people who before Rolm >to dial a operator you would dial '0' , but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0. >Also, I thought that 'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network. To be fair, Rolm systems are not "monsters"; they are, however, moderately difficult to program and use. Thus if they are not carefully installed by somebody sympathetic to human factors, they can be a bear. A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible with any standard telephone. Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS interfaces aren't. I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines. No sweat. What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user, even with a 2500 set, to have more features than any other set's 2500 set. It's a 'two call' model, totally non-standard. Once you learn it, you can do a lot. But hardly anybody ever seems to learn it. The engineers who designed it in 1974 enjoyed it, probably for its hack value. The Rolmphones with lots of buttons are easier to use, thankfully, but of course you then need a second (analog) line for your answering machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
amb@ai.mit.edu (Andrew Boardman) (09/25/90)
>A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible >with any standard telephone. Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS >interfaces aren't. I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering >machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines. No sweat. At least on the 9751, the standard interface for the proprietary sets is indeed standard; for POTS devices the interface card is a costly add-on. >What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model >that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user This is what makes it massively inappropriate (IMHO) for the frequent university setting. The student users enjoy none of the privs with all of the hassles. An illuminating paraphrase from Columbia University administration after their recent installation: "This system is perfect for our use. We realize that it raises manifold problems for the student population, but you guys are only here for four or five years; we *work* here." Makes me wonder who these universities are for, anyway... >but of course you then need a second (analog) line for your answering >machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX. Analog phones: the moden-day undergrad dream... Andrew Boardman amb@ai.mit.edu
kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) (10/03/90)
In article <12142@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Matthew McGehrin writes: > First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I > have many friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed > and it is a pain in the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. > I know people who before Rolm to dial a operator you would dial '0', > but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0. Also, I thought that >'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network. I am a *former* ROLM employee, but I still feel I must defend their products' honor. The recent [and not-so-recent :-)] company troubles ROLM has had are well known, but their products (PhoneMail, 8000, 9000, 9751 series CBX) are still pretty darn good. I would venture to say that the problems Mr. McGehrin's friends have had are caused more by poor configuration of the CBX than by deficiencies of the switch itself. The ROLM CBX can be configured to use about any dialling plan that the customer wants; it almost sounds as if the college in question is trying to discourage students from calling the operator. When I worked at ROLM, our phone system (ROLM, of course!) had 5-digit extensions, "0" for company operator, "9-0" for your friendly AT&T (or MCI, or Sprint) operator, etc. - none of this "678 then 0" stuff. As far as non-ROLMphones being incompatible: the CBX does have an interface for plain ole' brown phones that (I believe) supports any standard analog phone. I'm sure if I'm wrong about that, someone will correct me :-). Before somebody asks: yes, I did work in CBX development, but none of the bugs are my fault, so please don't ask me about them :-) :-). Kevin Collins Aspect Telecommunications USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc San Jose, CA Disclaimer: My opinions are mine. My mother agreed with me once, but that was looong ago.