«

Hi,


Re: Anyone Noticed [lol] - The Incredible Similarity Between the Handytone
486 ATA & the "Gateway 102"


A little co-incidental come slightly closer inspection I noticed what seems
like a truly INCREDIBLE similarity between the Handytone 486 ATA and the
"Gateway 102" ATA (lol - this one really is funny / incredible! - lol). Take
a look at some pictures :


Handytone:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Handytone-486-...QQcmdZViewItem


"Gateway 102":

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Gateway-102-Du...QQcmdZViewItem


Thoughts, comments, etc.?


Best wishes,




News Reader


P.s. Got to love it

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:50:06 -0000, "News Reader" <>
wrote:

>Thoughts, comments, etc.?

Can't see so much similarity. The 486 has a POTS line port, but it
isn't a full FXO port.

The Gateway 102 claims to have a FXO port, and to support CLI (which
the POTS port of the 486 does not)

Are you the seller of one of these, trying to spam your listing?

Hi,

Yes they seem almost identical. At first I thought the similarity was
between the Gateway 102 and the Handytone 488 but the 486 seems a closer
match.

Here are the links to the user manuals for comparison:-

http://www.tigernetcom.com/Download/...GATE%20102.pdf

http://www.grandstream.com/user_manu...UserManual.pdf

I bought the Gateway 102 and am happy with its performance and the very low
price as it's made in China (supplier found on eBay).
--
Cheers from Mike

"News Reader" <> wrote in message
news:ela5fe$1em$...

> Re: Anyone Noticed [lol] - The Incredible Similarity Between the Handytone
> 486 ATA & the "Gateway 102"

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:50:06 -0000, "News Reader" <>
> wrote:
>
> >Thoughts, comments, etc.?
>
> Can't see so much similarity. The 486 has a POTS line port, but it
> isn't a full FXO port.
>
> The Gateway 102 claims to have a FXO port, and to support CLI (which
> the POTS port of the 486 does not)
>
> Are you the seller of one of these, trying to spam your listing?


Hi,

I think if you do the same as me - a direct physical comparison - you will
see the layout of the physical device is almost identical - right down to
the LED on the front and Ethernet, power and POTS line connectors on the
back.

That is so striking to me as to be unmissable / incredible.

I.e. it would appear to be physically internally almost identical or from a
very similar / the same design sheet(s).

That is all I was referring to really.

Sorry I am not proving to have more depth, etc. to myself on this occasion -
no ebay spamming, no real interest in the software(ish) side functionality,
etc. - just someone struck by the incredible physical similarity (i.e. it
looks like only the plastic moulding case is different - again compare the
pictures and look at the port placements - identical - or looks incredibly
similar to me!).


Best wishes,



News Reader

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:59:03 -0000, "News Reader" <>
wrote:

>I.e. it would appear to be physically internally almost identical or from a
>very similar / the same design sheet(s).

On looking at the user manual (link provided by Mike Sun), it looks as
if you are correct. The description of the 102 was wrong. It doesn't
have a FXO port - just the PSTN pass-through that you can also use by
dialling *00 - and I bet it doesn't carry incoming CLI either.

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 16:59:03 -0000, "News Reader" <>
> wrote:
>
> On looking at the user manual (link provided by Mike Sun), it looks as
> if you are correct. The description of the 102 was wrong. It doesn't
> have a FXO port - just the PSTN pass-through that you can also use by
> dialling *00 - and I bet it doesn't carry incoming CLI either.

What qualifies as an FXO port may need clarification - I'm not sure myself
but it seems that an FXO port needs to be able to do a bit more than just
allow FXS to make and receive calls via the PSTN. Perhaps route a call from
PSTN to IP network and visa versa.

I found this article explaining the difference between FSX and FXO ports but
I'm wondering if the ports are marked the wrong way round?:-

http://www.3cx.com/PBX/FXS-FXO.html

So I'm wondering on the Gateway 102 what should the "FXO" port be mark as?
And is it different from the 486?

Cheers from Mike