No loop current on line 101

[DWLaurie]

I pulled the Error log on an ACS Rev. 4.76.7 and it has this entry:

Simple Name Count Last Occurrance Comment/Action
ME_LANOLOOP 12 12/03/2004, 03:31 PM No loop current on
Line 101. Check Line

I find this a bit disturbing because I remember seeing this entry last month and it only had a count of 11 and it last occurred on 10/29 and now there is a new ocurrance only 6 days ago. What does this error mean? Is it a line issue or is it a port issue? Let me re-phrase, is the error coming from the Central Office or could the port be going bad??? Does Line 101 refer to Line 1?

Some background, the last time I was in this system was 11/15/2004 and the last time that the system was physically altered was 11/24/2004. Nothing was happening on 12/03 that any one in the office can recall.

 

[toolman18]

http://sandman.com/loop.html

 

[paul144]

Ditto the above. Loop current attenuators should solve it.

 

[DWLaurie]

OK, so what's the difference in a regulator or an attenuator? From the descriptions on the web site, they both reduce current. Is it simply that the attenuator is manual and the regulator is automatic?

 

[itpphoneguy]

Hi DWLaurie,
Try with a resistor first. It could be that the alarm disconnects the line occasionally, the error is indicating a loop current failure. A comshare will do this sometimes too.
-Chris

 

[skip555]

the regulators and attenuators bring high current down

the way I read it its telling you there was no dialtone

i wouldnt be concerned about it

the regulators automaticaly give you 25ma regardless of how high the telco is providing

the attenuators require you to put a meter on and flip dipswitchs untill you get 25ma , but then if the voltage from the teloc changes so does your output

 

[DWLaurie]

Chris,
A comshare eh? Meaning you think that there could be something on the line between the block and the ACS? Which line is line 101? Is that the first CO line on the ACS?

 

[skip555]

alarm guys usually like to grab the first line

they may have grabbed it anywhere (not necessarly between the block and the acs)

we where having problems once and found that the fire alram peaple had tapped into the cable that was feeding the RJ21x so the line was going through thr alarm before it ever reached the demark (just happend to find it up in the ceiling while we where pulling new cable )

 

[TouchToneTommy]

Even better when the alarm people grab the voice pair of a Partner station thinking they have found dial tone. If it's a busy office, and a ringing station, you can have problems of the alarm answering calls thinking it's remote programming calling in.

 

[DWLaurie]

OK guys I get the drift but the bigger question here is which line is Line 101? Being a computer nerd I could read Line 101 as the first line on the first module, or if it's a binary number it could be Line 5 [(4X1)+(0X2)+(1X1)=5] if the programming started the count at 1, or it could be Line 6 if the programming starts the count at 0.

Since I've read that the ACS is based on the Motorola 68306, a very similar processor to the ones found in Apple Macintoshes in the early 90's, it's not such a strectch to extrapolate that the ACS thinks like a computer.

My reasoning here is that the installer put a discriminator between the ACS and the block for the fax line. The fax line is either Line 5 or Line 6. So, if the discriminator hears fax tones and routes the call to the fax machine, could this cause the error codes as stated above?

BTW, I'd rather have the ACS do the fax discrimination, but I'm still fighting that battle I think that external discriminator is overkill!

 

[itpphoneguy]

Hi DWLaurie,
CO 101 is the first CO line. In other words, line 1.

When I am installing a new office, I give the alarm guys a CO in the middle of the hunt. This solves a few problems for the customer (I owned a business for 16 yrs and this was a pet peeve). Customer response has been very positive.
-Chris

 

[hbiss]

When I am installing a new office, I give the alarm guys a CO in the middle of the hunt.

You got that right! That's always been a pet peeve of mine too. If you leave it up to the alarm guy they always pick the main line and screw up your cross connect or wiring to boot. It's the worst thing in the world for the customer to have the alarm system go off and then when they pick up the phone it's dead. The alarm system siezes line 1 and disconnects it from the system. Normally that is the line the system auto selects when you lift the handset and nobody thinks to manually select another in their panic. You need to make sure the customer can use the phones to call 911 or whatever without any problems during an alarm condition.

Many of our jobs require several lines such as fire primary and secondary, security, elevator emergency, etc. I always start with the fax and any modem lines then to the last hunt.

-Hal

 

[DWLaurie]

Hmmm. well I checked, there is no alarm circuit on Line 1 and the fax discriminator is on Line 6.

Stumped!

 

[skip555]

i left them well marked on recent job as to where to hook the alarms

went back a month later and the fire alarm guy ignored my notes and had grabbed the first line then the burglar alarm must have come after him and also grabbed the first line

so it was coming from the teclo going thru the burglar alarm back out then thru the fire alsrm then to the phones

I really thought about calling the fire inspector and seeing what he thought about the line going thru the burglar alsrm first but then I figured it would just cause trouble for the customer

 

[skip555]

did you check the loop current on the lines ?

 

[skip555]

I would probably swap lines one and two and see if the problem follows the line or stays with the port

 

[paul144]

I guess we got a little side-tracked eh?
Do what skip suggests, swap the line. I am 90% certain that the trouble will follow the line. Then buy the current regulator. If this is only happening intermittently, then it is probably fluctuatiing, so an attenuator will do you no good. I should have caught that the first time. Also, even though this is probably a telco problem, since it is intermittent, it is highly unlikely that they will ever admit that anything is wrong with their current.

 

[skip555]

the regulator just brings high current down I don't think it will do a thing for no or low current

call and talk to mike before you order one (actually you should carry a few in your box anyway for when you need them , I do )

from the sandman site , loop current tech bulliten

If there is low loop current, below 23ma, the phone company is responsible for getting it up to 23. I've talked to guys in rural areas who said that the phone company told them they just couldn't get it up to 23, and I'm mot sure what you can do about it. You may have some recourse through your state's Commerce Commission, but who has the time for that?

it still sounds like you are just losing dialtone entirley for a breif period

the loop current regulators are a good product and will solve some problems I dont think they will do anything for you with this one

 

[itpphoneguy]

Hi DWLaurie,
I wouldn't worry about it unless the customer complains of a dead line. What is the time of the loop failure?
-Chris

 

[DWLaurie]

There is a larger problem here that this error was discovered while trouble shooting the first. Their incoming lines seem to ring in and get put on hold but there is never anyone there. I am wondering if this loss in loop current could be dropped calls that VM won't let go of for some reason. FYI EVERY call that comes in is routed through VM so VM is the first to see every call. The caller can dial the extension of the person wanted as the directory is read off, you know...

We've been fighting with "Hold Disconnect Times" and trying to get QWest to tell us if the CPC "Calling Party Control" signals are being send, but they have no clue what we are talking about. So, we will get QWest to come out and test the lines and get the technician to tell us about the CPC and have him get us in contact with the necessary testers in Repair.

If I have to, I'll go buy the $50 CPC Detector from SandMan and set the system according to that, then see what happens.