Re: Future or TAPI

Angus,


> I hear what you say about modems. I thought that modems were actually
full
> duplex and that the Unimodem driver only supported half duplex operation.
> There have been quite a few posts on here about people bemoaning
Unimodem's
> lack of full duplex support... so I sort of assumed it was Unimodem at
> fault.
>
> Interesting the bit about full duplex speakerphone - the little detail on
> the end makes a big difference!

You can try to study modem chipset documentations yourself, but
it was just this conclusion I found...

> On call progress detection, however do modems not detect a successful
> connection. Eg if you use AT commands in Hyperterminal to connect to
> another computer, the modem usually displays something like CONNECTED or
> CONNECTED 19200 . And when the modem disconnects it does eventually know
> about it. Unimodem doesn't even understand that.

What you say is only true in data mode. The modem exchanges signals
with a remote modem and tries to handle out a connection method
(especially bandwidth). When this is done the modem reports CONNECTED XX.
When you are in voice mode there is no remote party sending signals,
just a human voice. In voice mode there is not CONNECTED message
sent by the modem.

I am not completely sure but in data mode Unimodem might even be
able to report CS_INPROGRESS and CS_CONNECTED (but
I never tried that).


Best regards,

Matthias Moetje
-------------------------------------
TERASENS GmbH
Ackermannstraße 3
80797 München
-------------------------------------
Fon: +49 89 143370-0
Fax: +49 89 143370-22
e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
www: www.terasens.de
-------------------------------------



> "Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OJrhEa9XFHA.2128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Angus,
> >
> > I agree with some of your points, but I disagree in some areas:
> >
> > Regarding Unimodem: Call progress detection is a limitation of
> > modems, not of Unimodem. Modems don't have hardware support
> > for progress detection like professional telephony hardware has.
> > At some time I did some research on the full-duplex issue, but
> > I'm still not sure if even a voice modem exists that supports
full-duplex
> > line operation. All modem specifications I have investigated only
> > mention "full duplex speakerphone" support which does not mean
> > full-duplex line operation, so what would a full-duplex Unimodem
> > driver help if there is no hardware that supports it?
> > So I don't believe that using AT commands will help much with your
> > development. It will only make your application dependant on the
> > modem chipset.
> >
> > Regarding wave drivers: I think the PBXs Grant mentioned are all
> > VoIP based PBX systems. For conventional PBX systems (be it
> > analog or ISDN) you need to know that these are able to switch
> > connections but they don't have built-in line devices and they do
> > not have the capability to stream multiple audio channels to a
> > TAPI application. (wouldn't work anyway via the serial link which
> > is often used to connect a PBX to a TAPI server)
> > So again this is not a limitation of TAPI but of the hardware.
> >
> >> I have worked with CSTA too. From experience it tends to be available
> > with
> >> larger PBX's. Perhaps Microsoft was more interested in bigger
companies.
> >
> > You may be very right here, this could be indeed the point why
> > they made this decision.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Matthias Moetje
> > -------------------------------------
> > TERASENS GmbH
> > Ackermannstraße 3
> > 80797 München
> > -------------------------------------
> > Fon: +49 89 143370-0
> > Fax: +49 89 143370-22
> > e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
> > www: www.terasens.de
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "Angus Comber" <angus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:%23UOX2S8XFHA.2124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> There are a lot of things about TAPI which are annoying. Here is my
> >> list.
> >>
> >> 1. Unimodem driver is pretty pathetic. You can't really do a lot with
a
> >> voice modem. Progress detection is poor as is the half duplex
> >> limitation.
> >> I thought about developing a basic voicemail application and still
might,
> >> but will use AT commands.
> >>
> >> 2. Vendor support is pretty good but often you have to pay for the TAPI
> >> driver or what I would consider fairly basic call control features such
> >> as
> >> forwarding and DND are only available if you pay a licence. I would
like
> > to
> >> see more advanced TAPI features from PBX manufacturers.
> >>
> >> 3. In my small experience wave drivers for TAPI PBX's are not
available,
> >> don't work or cost. Network Alchemy only had a wave driver for a
> > particular
> >> model, and apparently it didn't work. Wave driver for next models cost
> >> quite a bit. Strange thing is that these PBX's cost less than $1000
for
> >> basic models but you pay another $1000 for the wave driver/extended
TAPI
> >> support.
> >>
> >> Also generally getting ANY sort of developer support from vendors is
like
> >> pulling teeth.
> >>
> >> I have worked with CSTA too. From experience it tends to be available
> > with
> >> larger PBX's. Perhaps Microsoft was more interested in bigger
companies.
> >>
> >> Intel don't seem too bothered about TAPI either. They now own Dialogic
> > and
> >> someone told me the latest cards don't even support TAPI. Or maybe
their
> >> latest software doesn't include a TAPI driver. Not sure.
> >>
> >> Having said all that, TAPI does appear to be the number one API for any
> >> telephony work. does anyone else agree/disagree?
> >>
> >> Angus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:e5yPmF6XFHA.2796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Hello all,
> >> >
> >> > in case you didn't already know, I'd like to inform you that the
> >> > new call control capabilities of Live Communications Server
> >> > 2005 SP1 in combination with Office Communicator 2005
> >> > rely on a CSTA link to PBXs instead of TAPI.
> >> > I don't know the reason for this decision but anyway I think
> >> > it's kind of sad that MS does not seem to rely on TAPI for
> >> > new products. (MS Speech Server is not built on TAPI either,
> >> > although TAPI would have been an ideal platform for it).
> >> >
> >> > Please share your comments...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > Matthias Moetje
> >> > -------------------------------------
> >> > TERASENS GmbH
> >> > Ackermannstraße 3
> >> > 80797 München
> >> > -------------------------------------
> >> > Fon: +49 89 143370-0
> >> > Fax: +49 89 143370-22
> >> > e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
> >> > www: www.terasens.de
> >> > -------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Compiling the drivers for a ADSL Modem (IceData500)
    ... My modem model is IceData500 and the vendor says it is compatible with RH ... The unicorn driver is a standard Linux ... PPPoE, PPPoA or RFC2684 protocols, the kernel may need to be patched. ... To compile the drivers, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: MODEM driver
    ... While installing Modem Driver TAPI sends ATQ0E0V1. ... The classic example is a service modem which is listening for an ...
    (microsoft.public.development.device.drivers)
  • Re: Using Flashhook with TAPI 3.1 to Transfer w/ a Modem
    ... I'll play with the browser - and no, ... the TAPI Browser. ... I belive the modem must be a voice modem to support ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)
  • Re: Canon Pixma MP750?
    ... Canon as an AIO is not as mature. ... lack of driver refinement. ... On a device that has a fax modem all one needs to use is use ... see the need to offer pc to fax support on an AIO as pc to fax support ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)
  • RE: C# + TAPI - Answer detection problem
    ... I have discussed this issue with some TAPI expert in Microsoft. ... This is not possible with a modem, regardless of what language you use. ... Microsoft Online Community Support ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)