Re: NX-540 Networx Operator vs. RJ31X

[tinyelvis77@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jim wrote:
> tinyelvis77@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Does the NX-540 eliminate the need for an RJ31X on a Caddx NX8 panel?
> >
> > The wiring diagram for the NX-540 shows it directly between the panel
> > and the telephones with no RJ31X involved, so I figure it must assume
> > the role of the RJ31X.
> >
> > Is this right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Not that it wont operate that way, but it doesn't provide any option to
> disconnect the alarm system from the phone lines in the event there is
> a suspicion that the alarm is causing a problem with the phone lines.
> Phone company service are usually not even aware of what an RJ 31 X
> jack does and will usually disconnect the alarm system anyway by
> cutting the wires, but at least the owner can eliminate the alarm
> system when the phone service guy automatically assumes and tells the
> owner it's the alarm that's causing problems with the phone.



Thanks for the quick response, Jim!

I understand precisely what you're saying, and had not even considered
that.

I actually intended my question more from a line seizure perspective,
wondering if the NX-540 would serve that purpose in the absence of the
RJ31X.

The reason that I've started to question it at all was that with the
31X in place with the 540 was pretty flakey and causing some problem on
the line.  I began to wonder if I shouldn't have the 31x there.

Thanks for your input!

Dave