[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Next Alarm

Subject: Re: Next Alarm
From: Robert L Bass <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:12:35 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <dd4vtt$8f2k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Z6ydnVB2Lo_O_ZreRVn-2g@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <na6gg1tpue3cvnbsnkeaj9md7juls09cnq@xxxxxxx> <I86dnSzc_-8txZXeRVn-pw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <pdeig1t4ocl4vco412fhf6er0j40f1aqjr@xxxxxxx> <A4SdnY-DxdoPMJTeRVn-3g@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>> Which non-UL compliant methods?  I'm not doubting you.  I don't
>> recall a discussion about that.
>>
> They use a device that intercepts the dial attempt,
> and re-routes it over the internet....

Oh, yes.  Thanks for the reminder.  But doesn't that only apply
to folks using VoIP.  If so, then for most folks that shouldn't
be an issue at present.  In a few years when POTS lines become as
rare as good advice from Olson everyone will have to find a VoIP
compatible solution.

Regards,
Robert L Bass
www.BassBurglarAlarms.com



--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Jackcsg
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Frank Olson

References:
- Next Alarm
  - From: Roberto
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Jack
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Robert L Bass
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Jackcsg
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Robert L Bass
- Re: Next Alarm
  - From: Jackcsg

Prev by Message: Re: Help identifuing a wire
Next by Message: Re: Help identifuing a wire
Previous by thread: Re: Next Alarm
Next by thread: Re: Next Alarm
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home