atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums General General Telephone & Systems Information Is VoIP an attempt to steal phone tech work?

The more info I read and the more I learn about VoIP, I come back to the same thought, are the IT guys trying to take over telecom?

The equipment is computer based, the transport is the internet, and the techs are really geeks.

Since the folks in telecom, that have been in telecom for any length of time, know how reliable the internet's up-time is, we should not worry about VoIP replacing the PSTN. For years, the argument has been "Telephone is not allowed to have down time". This one statement is the entire argument of VoIP vs Telecom.

An office with a VoIP communications system that needs to be rebooted, as computers do now and again, will need to do without telecommmunications for the duration of the boot-up process. As the computer loads its operating system, then loads the software required to operate as a telephone system, there is no possibility of a call being received or originated, and this can be up to several minutes. What becomes of a caller, trying to reach you during the down-time? Is that caller provided a notice you are still in business, or does the carrier see no signal from the far end and play the "number not in service" recording? Will the call ring unanswered as currently happens with POTS?

VoIP is a good theory, but until QOS, reliability, guarantee of up-time, etc are improved, I would hesitate greatly before considering a VoIP system.

Yup, you nailed it. That's why we string up every fifth computer geek or IT "professional" (whatever the hell that is) that signs up here.

-Hal

and the fourth one just signed up

OK....yes....the computer geeks are trying to take over the telecom world (as well as every other aspect). I know because I am one (hopefully one of the good ones).

I like VoIP in the rare instances where it is actually needed. That said, inter-office VoIP is stupid and there is no need. Same feelings on VoIP trunking. Sure, you may save a few pennies on calls, but as Frank_DaFoneguy so gracefully put, the reliability is not there.

Now for the profound wisdom......

IF YOU WANT VoIP GET A HYBRID AND A GOOD INSTALLER! there are applications for it....just not as many as "they" claim.

Not true on a private network. There are many ways to do VOIP, on a private network say MPLS or via the public network, the internet. The company I manage moves all its voice traffic on a private MPLS network. The savings in over $200K per year. Call quality on the MPLS is better that the PSTN IMO.

The problem is the marketing is ahead of the product. They are pushing a concept for something that is still in it's infancy working through some growing pains.

I install VoIP systems (utilizing as little internet-based VoIP as possible) and have had good experiences with it. It has proven very versatile and stable. My connection quality is as good as whatever I hook it to.

I think it's less that the "IT Guys" are trying to take over the world but more that they believe things can be done differently. If things never changed then most of us wouldn't be here talking. At one point the computer was considered a fad that would die out as well. Operator's probably hated the invention of switches as well.

Just my opinion.

The problem is the marketing is ahead of the product. They are pushing a concept for something that is still in it's infancy working through some growing pains.

This is how the computer industry works. They pretty much invented that concept. To hell with the customers, I want mine now so I can retire at 40. This is the new generation folks, spoiled rotten by their parents who then gave them a college education. They spend 4 years learning nothing and they think they have paid their dues. They are out to make as much money as they can any way they can and they think they are entitled to it. To hell with honesty, integrity and ethics.

Fortunately the "old time" telecom trade knows the value of an honest days work and working hard to give their customers a product that delivers as promised from day one. Unfortunately that is becoming harder and harder to do with the next generation taking over the leadership and copying the greed the computer industry has championed.

-Hal

The only growing pain of VOIP is the growing pain-in-the-a-- it is becoming!
liquidvw, it was REAL tough to pass up the oppertunity prezented bi yor tipoz! Newtwork and quatily, man those were begging, I guess I'm a better man than I thought! John C. (Not Garand)

LiquidVW is correct. An MPLS managed network is probably the most stable platform between multiple sites that is available today. There is hard and soft redundancy built in so there is no single point of failure. A customer site of ours that has 23 locations with 300 lines received enough savings to pay for new premise equipment at all locations via monthly lease. 24/7 monitoring at data centers insures some serious uptime. Chances are issues are fixed before you know there are problems. Not everyone can afford to play in this arena however. VoIP over anything other than truly managed bandwidth is idiotic.

Wow.

I wish I had a rebuttal but I'd like to retire by 40. Anyone need a pensions administrator and/or accountant? (LOL)

Anyways, enough of the hijack. Back on topic

As RBF noted "Not everyone can afford to play in this arena however." Therein is the problem.

How many mom & pop stores, gas stations, churches, delis, restaurants and such can afford to get into a managed VOIP service situation? Local loop charges alone are enough to keep small outfits away.

Managed services seem to be fine for medium to large corporations with multiple locations that need to be linked. Having an IT person on staff is a real plus.

The little guy is relegated to the Vonage or Packet 8.

I wish I had a rebuttal but I'd like to retire by 40.

I think we all would like to but some of us actually grew up sometime before.

-Hal

I need Voip because my toilet now has a network connection in order to alert me when the cesspool of information backs up.

Well, I hate to say it, but I just helped install my first VoiP system going through another company. I had this customer for 10 years, and they wanted to buy a new system from me. They gave me every chance to win the bid, but I couldn't get close to the price and feaures being offered by a couple of the VoiP vendors. Fortunately for me, I was able to refer them to a company I partner with and will get a nice finders fee out of the deal and the oppurtunity to learn a new VoiP system. I still prefer the PBX and Key systems, but I think the cost and features available to medium and large businesses will make them look closly. I will give more feedback once the system is in place.

Zane
Who's going to be the bad guy when it fails or has so many issues they want it removed, you or the partner? "Features" on a IP phone thats a joke. 90% of the features on a key system dont get used after the first day of training. VoIP has it's place in this business but I just cant see why a company would put up with all of the issues or the cost when the cable is in place and the phone sits on the desk in the same spot for the next 10 years. But wait will that IP phone still work after 10 years most PC's dont and will it need the weekly upgrades that a network does?
Companies at one time looked at the long haul, cost of investment, return on investment and future replacement. But some how all of this has gone by the way side for the new Buzz word VoIP.

Sorry Zane not a attack at you.

I agree, VOIP is a bit of a buzz word. The issue on this thing was cost and capapbilities. I tried to get them into a BCM, but it wouldn't meet their minimum requirements. So instead of losing the deal completely, I brought someone else in. They are now the vendor, and I am more a consultant on this one. But I am okay with that because the customer was very low maintenance to begin with, so now I get the oppurtunity to learn something new. So far from what I have seen, it does everything a BCM or Nortel would do. Obviously, the real verdict will be after the system has been in use a few weeks.

What is the system based on?

The one we installed was a 3Com.

Why don't you let us know about a month after the install and see how it is doing. I bet you will have more problems with it then a BCM. The hype is one thing let us see it perform. Good luck with it and just make sure the customer knows that they decided on the 3com not you.

I have never dealt with the 3-com system but I have heard that is uses a fairly well molested version of sip and has been known to cause problems with sip-endpoints (like ATA's/etc).

Let me know how that works out for you as well.

90% of so called Voip Systems are still getting their Trunks via a T1 or PRI using TDM, the customer thinks they have voip but in truth its just voip from the handset to the phone system.

So Avalon, are you saying VOIP will be better or worse when it's VOIP end-to-end? Or is it the old "time will tell"? John C. (Not Garand)

To refere to the original poster's question, is VOIP an attempt to take away the work of the phone guy? Well, computer guys are always looking to change the way something is done and this is no different. I don't think computer guys are intentionally trying to be phone men, but they feel there is another way to do what we're doing and make a big chunk of a huge market. We telecom professionals have to accept that the times they are a-changin' and (at the very least) become knowledgeable on anything taking place in our industry. I feel it is my job to evaluate what's out there, determine whether or not it's useful, and discard what is not applicable. We have to take the role of educators for the client and show them how they can get the most out of the available technology. It's not much different from the process we use to determine which systems we will be offering to the public. There will be 25 different opinions whether the product we carry is better than Joe the phone man's product and we have to be prepared to present our case.
VOIP is here to stay, so we have to show the customer where it fits and where it doesn't. Winning the trust of the client and proving our technical proficiency and ability to think outside of the box, is really what we do anyway.

VoIP? Computer guys wanting to be telephone men? Not hardly, I started in telecom back in the early 80's and about that time, “telephone people” were trying to connect computers together with data adapters connected to the phone sets. Well, we all know that didn't work out to well. I decided in the 90's to migrate over to the networking side (computers/switches & routers) because I could see the "writing on the wall". Voice will move over to more of a computer networking environment, it's just not going to happen as fast as some people would like. What I have found out in the past is, most "computer" people don't know “ditties” about voice or anything about the industry and they are many times "dumbfounded" by telecommunications. Although small KSU’s and PBX's may resist the migration to a VoIP platform for a bit longer, anyone who wants to continue to work on telecommunications equipment (KSU and PBX level) will need to adapt to the changing industry. If not, then I fear your only options will be to support equipment that will one day eventually fail or move on to another profession. Key in mind when we changed from 1A2 key sytems to "new fangled" Electronic key systems, many people didn't want to change then either, but there aren't just to many 1A2 key systems (or "steppers" for that fact) left out there either.

I personally would like to retire at 40,….. oh darn, I guess I missed that one by a few years. Anyway, this is just MHO.

For some insight into the why, I had a customer/IT person tell me the other day that they wanted the VOIP system so they didn't have to deal with cabling. "I hate cabling" was the remark. Funny thing is, what do VOIP phones run on? I think there's a general fear of the 25-pair amphenol cable. Give them something that's more familiar: a Cat 5e patch cord; and regardless of whether they have to learn how to program a system and keep it up for phone calls to come and go, they will be comfortable. Strange mentality. I guess it's not much different than us saying we don't like a particular system, when in reality we are just unfamiliar with it.

Between the buzz words, the hype, and the amphenolphobia, we're in for an uphill battle.

My fear is that the dropped calls and poor quality of service will become as accepted as computer down-time and reboots. It's not logical, since there is already something out there that works reliably 99.9% of the time. However, the justification will be made for whatever reason, and we will see more and more of the VOIP, and less and less of the reliable TDM.

By the way Avalon, it's not VOIP from the handset to the phone system. It's analog (that 6-letter dirty word that NO I.T. person wants to hear as being part of their system) from the handset to the phone, and then VOIP from the phone to the system.

Nicely worded Justin! Amphenolphobia? Does that mean some people are amphenolmaniacs?

MAYBE, Just MAYBE, VoIP is a grab at the few remaining computer dollars, by an industry that required EVERYONE IN THE WORLD to upgrade for Y2K.

With the technology budget of many companies now on the rise after the recovery and amortization of Y2K expenses, the computer guys have found a new "buzzword" and the minions have begun to subscribe to the earbug of "we need something better than what has been more than reliable enough for the past 100 years"

As key systems began replacing 1A2, it was the "more reliable and better" that allowed the key system to take over. We are hearing whispers of that with VoIP, but, reliability is the greatest issue with telecommunications.

after all, it IS all tip and ring

Perhaps the commercial VoIP PBX's came about due to it's decreased production costs.

A lot of time and money is spent in order to develop your own switch fabric, logic, cards, and so on.

Now say you realize that there is already a fabric capable of transmitting your voice from Point A to Point B. TCP/IP Ethernet. It's very mature and in widespread deployment. It alleviates you from having to maintain your own physical connections and allows you to use a single cheap NIC that is capable of handling hundreds of calls over one physical connection. Add to that "value" that there is a free protocol standard already developed called SIP. All that is before marketting gets ahold of the idea and goes "We can use it on the internet!". Not much of a stretch to connect those dots. They probably spend more money on the POTS/TDM interface chips then they do on the NIC side of things. Although i'm sure they are just reusing existing designs for this.

Now they look at all the costs involved in developing their own customized RTOS to run this PBX. Since we are using pre-existing wide-spread network technology, why not use pre-existing wide-spread programming technology? No longer are they limited to the small engineering staff they have to write the RTOS for them, but they can use popular languages such as C, C#, etc, to write their PBX as a software platform. Now they have access to literally millions of programmers to write their code.

Since they can now use widespread programming tools to write their applications, then that means they can now use cheap industrial-grade x86 hardware.

Basically, they are assembling a pre-configured pre-engineered pre-existing lego set of computer hardware. Obtaining more money for more usage is now just a software-license away. One hardware system now replaces 5 traditional PBX's depending on the software they install on it.

So from the inside it may seem like computer people are trying to be phone guys, but I think it is the PBX companies that are trying to leverage technology that has already been paid for in order to create a product they dont have a lot invested in. Technology in the computer arena matures faster and evolves faster then anywhere else.

The other side of the coin (Mostly from the Open Source Software side) is that the engineers and programmers may honestly believe that after 100 years of faithful service, the capability of the PSTN network is now limiting us. There may be a better way to have a conversation with someone, or to do business, then what currently exists. The PSTN has done it's duty for over 100 years and done so pretty reliably. But as with all things, they can be outgrown, or outdated. This is what I like to believe, that VoIP is merely the next evolution of voice communications.

Kumba, Kumba, Kumba, when will you learn? :rolleyes:

You just made the obvious even plainer......

Mature? Computer Technology? The Internet?

Let's take away the old, tired, tried and true infrastructure that has worked for over a century and see how well they work.

Why do CGs always use a cloud for the Internet inter-connectivity? Because they don't know. :confused:

Mature? If Bell Labs hadn't invented the transistor you'd still be the guys in the heavy black rimmed glasses with the plastic pocket protector with a slide rule in it!

Mature? You infants are standing on the shoulders of giants. Once the "gravy" is sucked up the real communications' giants will gnaw the bones of the VoIP industry. A flash in the pan, quick profit, no staying power. The Edsel of the electronics' age.

So how come laptops are so costly compared to desktops? How come this universal interoperability cost more now than a decade ago.....? The magic "License"....pure highway robbery...and for nothing....but another cup of curry that you eat out of your rice bowl.

KUMBA....KUMBA.......Come to the light. Just come out of the darkness.....come to the light.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

ROFL KLD... As a VoIP mod I tend to play with all things IP centric. I'll take it and break it...or take it and make it. I came into this industry in the mid 70s learning telecom installing and repairing gear developed in the 50s. Worked fine..lasted a long time. Did voice excellent. Didn't do video..we had cameras for that. Didn't do data....had punch cards for that. It did what it was designed to do.

VoIP is a technology that promises alot. It's kinda like a first date. All positives put forth but you really don't get to see the real deal until much later.

I can take 10 developers working Asterisk and other open source platforms. I can walk away with 10 different ways of looking at it. I have 10 different boxes working 10 different ways. Waaaay too much room for artistic liberties to be a standard.

Transport between sites is awesome. Telecommuters is excellent. Softphones...way cool. WIFI..love it. Put an IP set on a "normal" network without revamping it with total QOS routers is idiotic. Sellers of this new technologies rarely tell you of the hidden costs. I can sell a TDM/hybrid system to an enduser and they call me when they need me. I'm not there on day 364 demanding licenses or their system will be DOA tomorrow. Small to medium shops don't expect recurring licensing for their handsets and voicemail.

BTW ...gave a quote today to remove a 13 set hosted VoIP solution and replace with a Vertical MP5000 with unified messaging . Demo went well. Customer really liked. Third deal (if I close) from this hosted VoIP provider.

You should be farming their customer base. Then again, why bother. They're already coming to you! :thumb:

It's kinda like a first date.

More like you get totally s*** faced, wake up the next morning in bed next to some really ugly broad and then you find out that you married her last night.

-Hal

And paid a HUGE price for the wedding. What you don't understand is why the honeymoon didn't turn out like your golf buddies described.

Guys, you are killllllling me !!!!!!!!

:rofl: :shrug:

I knew I was going to get blasted from all the tried and true folks on here. I expected that and that's why I waited to post.

I guess all we can do is hurry up and wait.

I know that I am not willing to stake my future on how things were 10 years ago, let alone 100.

Ken, if I had to guess, I'd say you were at the mexican food place @ about 18th and Broadway in KCMO. Man, I can taste their 1/2 bowl of Mexican Chili with flour tortillas, used to be 2.95, 20 years ago.

Kumba, as an old dog, I suspect you will be proved right in the end. It's just that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", esp if they won't pay attention (Translation, close to retirement, whether they can afford it or not). So VOIP will sucessfully, reliably deploy, and us old dogs will be around to keep the leftovers running until they're no longer viable. Just my 50 cents worth. (Inflation, you know!) John C. (Not Garand)

I dont think VoIP will replace TDM, but will instead compliment it to a point that it is amibiguous which is which.

And for the record, doing VoIP over the internet or any unmanaged network is bad. Probably why I dont do internet-based VoIP installs.

Lightninghorse,

Your statement makes me think of the TV repairmen that would not adapt to solid state, they just kept repairing the tube type TVs until there were no more left....

if the blocks in the picture are the type with 66 style punch on the lower and RJ jacks in the upper, they are not usually wired as normal.

In the mod-jack blocks, tip & ring are side by side, not over/under.

Frank, I know I am tired and senile, but, where is the picture? :shrug:

And Kumba, we were not blasting you, just having a tongue-in-cheek moment while I ate pepper pork and soupy beans. And John, La Cockaroacha is at 17th and Broadway, still a good deal if it weren't for the yuppies. Manny's is down the hill. Ponack's just under I-35. Then you go out Southwest Blvd to the Argentine. Where else do you have a Mexican joint and a BBQ shack sharing a parking lot?

Guys, Kumba has pretty well summed it up. Unmanaged networks and junk equipment will always hurt the VoIP people until it does mature.

Have a good night, I'm eating spicy ribs tonight.

KLD: Yeah I know... that's why the Tried and True comment made it into my reply

If it helps, i've been called worse by better... LOL

There's only a few (2~3) things I disagree on, but for the most part you guys have it nailed.

That's it in a nutshell Ken.

The network MATTERS

I would also add that the single most important component of a successful VoIP, IP Telephony, or Unified Communications implementation (other than using QUALITY hardware) is hiring a competent company to configure the system PROPERLY. If you do those two things, the promises are more than just hype! If not, somebody is NOT going to be happy.

Come on guys, slip a toe in to test it out...the water's fine. Actually, scratch that, this is not something that you just want to 'try out'. If you are not completely committed to it, it's going to bite you. If you don't have the bandwidth to do it right...do something else. IMHO

And my question: Who gets the blame? Its the phones that don't work correctly it has to be a phone problem.
I went to a site yesterday that has 10 IP phones on 10 desk with PC running thru the IP phones (to save money on cabling), a video conf unit in the conf room and 5 network printers. All of this on a 512k pipe. The remote CG states "well it is MPLS" to that I shake my head and say, to myself, but its only 512k.

If you sell someone a system and it doesn't work or doesn't work the way it was sold, then you are to blame. If the system has a limitation that you thoroughly explained to the customer, then tell them "Hey, that's Life". If the problem is outside of your control then what can you do?

I get phonecalls about my phone installs every time it rains. Verizon's copper is cutting in and out and therefore it must be my box. Similar situation as your 512K pipe.

The glaring issue with whoever installed those phones are the 512K pipe. They probably dont have a QoS router installed to make sure the phones get priority either.

As far as the phones being inline it would depend on the phone. Some phones will actively act as a QoS limiter and cut back the computer traffic if it gets to high. This is the case with Polycom. The other side-issue is that now you have 2 lines ran to your phone and it makes moving it a PITA. Dont get me wrong, it's still done cheaply tho. It's one of those things where you go "Yeah, it'll work, but that's not what I recommend and I wont guarantee it" and explain why in detail. If they still insist on it then you either drop the job or let them get what they want.

You're most likely correct in the short term, but if you remember the LAN technolgies that were around in the 1980s which have been superseeded by the cureent technolgies it will only be a matter of time. In my part of the world true PBX phone techs that went thru the telco training programs now have an average age of about 46 and getting older. The ones coming on now have no grounding in telecomunications and can't tell busy tone from a DTMF tone, and are what we would have called "linies" back in the 80s. Anyone with any brains and an education now goes to the IT industry where the money is and the working condidtions are better. My son who is now 26 has done exactly that and has done allot better than I did at his age in the telco industry..

Now to win Lotto and retire..

I am from the IT side of things and I have always found support for Telecom to be more demanding because the expectations were higher for voice than data. The company I work for is adopting VoIP to reduce costs even though, in my opinion, voice quality was better on our outgoing Nortel equipment. I have a theory about why people are willing to accept the possible reduction in availability and quality: cell phones.

Cell phones have reduced the average person's expectation of availablity and quality SO much that only the most poorly-implemented VoIP installations seem unacceptable. I bet that most corporate executives spend at least as much time talking on cell phones as they do on wired phones. These same executives are the ones pushing the corporate in-house Telecom & IT staff to go with VoIP to reduce costs. So what if there are problems from time to time or voice quality issues? Cell phones have trained us that it is perfectly acceptable to not be able to place a call, have a call drop unexpectedly, or have voice quality issues.

IT may have made VoIP possible, but the cell phone made it acceptable. That is just my opinion. Thanks.

-Rob

That my friend hit the nail on the head. to the club

But, does that mean the whole world has to be the kind of pain that causes Sprint (and probably the other cell carriers now that Sprint has broken the ice) to drop customers. I for 1 would not have a cell phone, if my employer did not provide it! I certainly would not throw money down the rathole that overall 'cell service' (Add that to your oxymoron list) represents! I should mention that my employer also sells cell phones and we have access to the latest and greatest from 2 carriers. Even in the 'good' service areas, their definition of good is not the same as mine! Good means to me upwards of 95% 'uptime'. Even the cable industry is barely breaking that barrier. When 'up time' is 98% or better, I'll spend my own good money. Until then, the cell companies can 'whistle up a cat's patoot!'. Just my opinion, sorry about the rant. NOT! John C. (Not Garand)

In my opinion, cell phones suffer from poor quality regardless of carrier or handset manufacturer. My employer provides one, so I have one. I never use it while driving (convertible + manual transmission + safety = no talking on cell phone) and if I am near a wired phone I will always ask to call people right back instead of having a lengthy discussion on a cell.

I have never spoken to someone on a cell phone where I didn't know that they were on a cell phone after they spoke their first sentence even when the person is standing still. The poor quality of cell phones is the service "cost" of using them versus the "benefit" of convenience. It seems that most people believe that the benefit outweighs the cost so much that they are willing to spend their own money for crappy cell service.

I firmly believe that if cell phones hadn't been invented and decision-makers were looking at VoIP for the first time that the person giving the demo would be laughed out of the board room.

Talking on a cell phone may not provide the best quality conversation, but it sure beats stopping off at a pay phone in the rain only to find no change in your pocket :-(

As for the CGs, I would imagine there are many who are put in charge of telecommunications despite having little or no experience with it. I don't guess that many small to medium size companies could or would justify hiring an on-site telecom professional to handle phone service issues. I've found that most managers have no idea just how complex telecommunications is and what's required to setup a phone infrastructure that meet's their company's needs. They leave it to the computer support staff to "figure it out".

So now we have a CG with no trining or experience in telecommunications making decisions (or at least making recommendations) about phone systems and telecom infrastructure. Is it a wonder why VoIP appeals to someone who may understand networking but not telecom. And, of course, someone is SELLING this technology to the ill-informed CG.

It's like anything else, a proper decision requires knowledge and expertise, which is something many on the network side don't have in the telecommunications arena. I doubt seriously that most technical folks want to screw up a phone system decision, its a matter of not being equiped make the correct choice.

And, yes, I do work in network/systems administration. I also manage telecom for my company. I have, however, tried to make it clear as to what I do and do not know and that I'll need outside assistance for some issues.

Just my $.02

OK, Steve, I'll accept your statement that cell phones might be better that standing in the rain at a payphone with no change. Only the phone won't work in the vehicle, unless you turn the vehicle around. And roll the window down enough to stick the antenna out, unless of course you've got the latest and greatest with a stub that is the antenna. Then you're right back out in the rain! I do admit that cell phones can be mighty handy in an emergency. Unfortunately, the route my wife drives to work only has 2 places in a 5 mile twisting, but flat route. (Man that was redundant) John C.

This is really drifting, let's keep it.

Sorry, I got us off topic and never really answered the question.

No, I don't think that VoIP is an attempt to steal phone tech work. I am a CG with a fair amount of experience with telecom as well. VoIP is gaining ground because it is technically possible, it has acceptable voice quality to most people (that's where I was going with my cell comment) and it can save money in some cases.

Many companies now place telecom staff in the IT department. The company that I work for is just one example, but there isn't another IT/CG at any site in North America that knows more than an average consumer about phone lines, let alone phone systems, paging equipment, and other telecom peripherals.

On the other hand, we have lots of IT/CG types that know about networks. They make up the bulk of the department outnumbering the telecom staff 10 to 1. The head of the department started off as a CG. When they look for solutions they look at what is familiar. You have probably heard the old expression: If the only tool you have is a hammer then all of your problems start to look like nails.

There is no conspiracy here, just a reaction to circumstances that guides people in that direction.

If there is no conspiracy then how do you explain Many companies now place telecom staff in the IT department?

-Hal

If you want my guess, it's because the producers of these "VOIP" systems have purchased major prepaid charge accounts at most golf courses where corporate CEOs tend to frequent. It's all a palm greasing thing.

Do you really think that the CEO of, oh let's just pick one: Schlotsky Industries really understands what he agreed to buy on the golf course? Of course not! He just heard "savings" and in a typical knee-jerk reaction, opened up the checkbook.

Lest we forget the "keeping up with the Jones" issue.

We can continue to fool ourselves into believing that this stuff really works and saves money, but come on........

VOIP has it's place and works fairly well in certain instances, but once again, it is not ready for prime-time. This is the third generation. How many strikes does one get in a baseball game?

When it works flawlessly, across the board with the industry-standard 99.999% uptime requirement for telephone service, I will welcome the technology with open arms and sell it to anyone needing a phone.

I think that the average corporate office worker spends more time each work day on their computer workstation than talking on the telephone. Workstations, servers, and the networks that connect everything together are far more complex than the telecom equipment in the same office environment. These complex IT systems require support staff for end-users and the infrastructure that operates behind the scenes to allow modern office workers to do what they do. Since there are so many IT people compared to the number of telecom people and since most companies now seem to operate on the premise that anything with a power cord, display and input device should fall under IT then telecom groups end up in the IT department.

Many companies have a Chief Information Officer (CIO) or a Chief Technology Officer (CTO). You'll notice that there is Information & Technology in those titles, but no mention of telecom. Companies adopt VoIP (and focus on IT) not because of a conspiracy, but because the bulk of the support staff is more comfortable with VoIP (and IT work in general) than with a phone switch.

General purpose computers, even with all of the support issues, save companies money. Every square foot of office space costs money. Every piece of office furniture costs money. General purpose computers are far more compact than the sum of all of the devices they replace.

With the right software and a headset you can even use your computer in place of a telephone. Marginally acceptable now, the day will probably come that softphones will be the rule on the average corporate desktop. If you think that telephone desk sets will never go away, talk to the people who sold typewriters, adding machines, small typesetters, and stand-alone word processors.

I'm not trying to be incendiary and my comments all pertain to companies with, say, 500 employees or more. I think that smaller businesses would be crazy to rely on their data network for voice traffic without a full-time IT person. I certainly won't be replacing my Partner ACS with a VoIP system at home any time in the near future.

Companies adopt VoIP (and focus on IT) not because of a conspiracy, but because the bulk of the support staff is more comfortable with VoIP (and IT work in general) than with a phone switch.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along. Don't hire one person or retain a service company in the oft chance your old reliable (and paid for) TDM system requires attention. Scrap the whole thing for a problematic and expensive to implement VIOP solution just because your overpaid and overrated IT staff is too stupid to understand something that doesn't have a Microsoft operating system and a keyboard and monitor.

The conspiracy is in that the IT industry is much better organized and financed (read Microsoft, Cisco etc. etc.) than the telco industry. What other industry has the resources to reinvent the wheel just so their population has job security? How many geek publications are there? I would suggest hundreds, all trumpeting VIOP and many delivered weekly to corporate executive officers desks and numb nuts CIO and CTO types.

What telecom publication have you read lately? Sad to say you are reading it now...

-Hal

The company that I work for has increased the number of Telecommunications employees at the same ratio as IT employees after converting to VoIP. We have the same service contracts with the same vendors and we use the same cable installers.

Going to VoIP does have some tangible benefits for the company, though. Some of our sites don't have any technical support staff on site. Moving phones at those sites is now a breeze: every single jack in the office (except analog ports labeled as such) is connected to a power over ethernet data switch. When people want to move around, they can move their phone and notebook PC easily. Plug in anything anywhere and it works. Our Telecommunications staff used to talk non-technical staff through moving patch cables over the phone. Now our Telecommunications people spend time on more interesting things.

I was on a trip to New Zealand a couple of years ago. I took my cell phone and a good quality USB headset to use with a softphone package installed on my notebook. I could use the softphone for free (cell rate was expen$ive) with the same voice quality as the cell. People could even call me at my extension when I was sitting in an office or hotel room in New Zealand.

Anyway, my company may not be typical but we aren't changing our Telecommunications hiring practices as a result of VoIP.

LightningHorse sed:
It's just that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", esp if they won't pay attention (Translation, close to retirement, whether they can afford it or not). So VOIP will sucessfully, reliably deploy, and us old dogs will be around to keep the leftovers running until they're no longer viable.

I have been paying close attention to telecommunications for a long time. In the middle 80's, when cellular was supposed to revolutionize telecom. It did, we are now all rudely having conversations that are insignificant while waiting to pay for a coke and bag of chips at the local 7-11. Cellphones have become a nusiance at best (by the folks that are NOT using them for anything important.)

By the way, on the back of my truck, a sweet sticker...Hang Up and DRIVE

VoIP may be a good thing, and may also be the way telecom is going to go, BUT, until there are many improvements to the quality and reliability of the transport medium, and until they standardize how programmers program, and until they decide will it be switching method A or B that is the adopted standard, I will stick with key systems and PBX switches.

$0.02

Frank, let's start a Conga line, I'm following you! John C. (Not Garand)

I have used * for a number of years. I have seen its issues with vm problems, tx/rx issues and other oddities. In the begginging I was excited to have the idea of selling this or anything voip but again the system needs to be nearly 100% reliable to keep my reputation. I have yet to upgrade to a newer version or the telephony cards. Now I dont think traditionally telephony systems will just disapear. We still have alot in customers installing just the telephone lines only and rarely see voip except perhaps avaya. I think both can coixist and both have there purpous.

I have my own * box and have done my share of voip telecommuting to my box and called out my telus line. It was cool that I did not have to deal with long distance roaming charges but still voip with wifi is extreemly restricted and impossible to use when constantly traveling. Both have there place and I dont think traditional pbxs will disapear.

One thing I keep seeing in these posts about VoIP is the reliability of traditional phone service, which isn't there with VoIP. Now I don't have experience with VoIP, so I can't speak to that directly in any manner. I do have experience with our local phone service, which is anything but 100% reliable. And I certainly can complain about the call quality, which, with the recurring static and hum on our lines, is a real issue.

I'll grant you that a significant portion of our problems are related to the crappy old infrastructure in my area, but its not like the LEC will actually address these issues in any meaningful way. I've had countless vendor meets, meetings with the area cable supervisor, and some interesting conversations with Verizon's customer advocacy group.

The point of all this is this question:

Given the relative lack of call quality and number of service issues I've encountered with my traditional phone service, will I really see that much of a drop if we were using VoIP service? I mean, at this point I'm asking myself if it can really get worse than it is now. Assuming a solid network infrastructure (I can make that happen), what kinds of issues would I face in a VoIP implementation?

I am asking as I will be making a decision to replace our current phone equipment (ROLM 9751 Mod 10) and service in the upcoming months. And, yes, I do realize that the right installer is key to making any system installation successful or not. It is worth mentioning that I (network admin) will be required to do the MAC work on any system we install and will be trained to do as much.

Sorry if I'm drifting from the original topic. Bill if you want to move this to the VoIP forum or elsewhere, put it wherever you see fit.

Can't move just a post, but I think it fits with the quality issue. The infrastructure is beyond your control. My understanding of the reliability comments are the system itself as far as up time goes. Like you I'm not experienced in VOIP so if my thoughts are wrong someone will correct me.

Steve:

You have very valid points. A phone system is only as good as the infrastructure that serves it. Regardless of whether it's traditional copper, T1/PRI or variations of IP, if the infrastructure that delivers these services is unreliable, then no amount of equipment is going to correct it.

Sure, you can buy a car that will go 0-120 in ten seconds, but if you have nowhere you can (legally) drive it, then what's the point in having it?

VOIP has its place in today's telecommunications marketplace. There's no doubt about that point. The issue of placing the proverbial "eggs in one basket" is where the real thinking must come into play. Everyone hears "our servers are down" with regard to computers. They also hear "I have a bad cell signal where I am right now". People have become somewhat tolerant of these issues.

At the same time, these very same issues that are very commonplace with IP systems are starting to become accepted as the norm. That's just not right. I don't care what kind of operation any business is, their phones are and always will be their lifeline. The phones being down periodically and unexplicably, or monthly software patches and updates isn't acceptable in this day and age. Telephone companies strived for decades to maintain 99.999% uptime and that's the way that it should be.

Talk about drifting off-topic!

Steve,
The best answer is that you're probably in line for a solution that can give you the best of both worlds, a hybrid application. TDM is not going to go away because it makes too much sense for the majority of users today. In house, digital sets, utilizing your existing voice cabling. Why abandon that investment? If you have multiple sites, VOIP can be a great way to tie them together for easy dialing access and to save toll charges. To me it's foolish to allow the remote sites to rely completely on VOIP because of the countless issues that can render it unusable, so I recommend building them to stand alone, but enhance it with VOIP. For remote workers, VOIP can be a great application, with analog lines or cell phones as a ready fail over solution. As I stated way back towards the beginning of this thread, we have to see where ALL new technology fits in with what we do and what our client is trying to accomplish. It's our job to determine what works and what doesn't and advise accordingly.
As for the telco infrastructure issues, now is a good time to start evaluating carriers to see who has the best service, reputation, etc. And if Verizon has crappy facilities in your area, get the PUC involved.

Thanks guys. We are planning an office move to a relatively new area, so I'm looking forward to better facilities at that point. Fortunately we'll be consolidating the two offices that are in older areas where we've had the worst service issues. I will say that in the areas where we have new infrastructure we haven't experienced nearly the number of issues that we've seen in our older locations.

Kevhawk, that's just the approach I am considering for our new service. We have 14 locations on a private WAN (full mesh) that I was hoping to use for the interoffice communications via VoIP. I would continue the local service as PRI's or individual lines (for the smaller offices) via the LEC or CLEC. Voicemail would be centralized at the new hub location. Smaller versions of whatever phone system we select would be used at the remote sites and possibly VoIP access for home users.

When we reach implentation I'll start a new thread describing our experiences and what I've learned from the process. Right now I'm in the process of developing requirements for an RFP for the new system.

Telephone companies strived for decades to maintain 99.999% uptime and that's the way that it should be.

Remember that old Sprint (I think) TV commercial with the pin dropping. "Voice clarity so clear you can hear a pin drop". What happened? With VoIP and cell phones you are lucky to hear the other person. Looks like striving for the best quality and marketing it has been replaced by who can provide some kind of service at the cheapest price.

Like Ed said, it just ain't right.

-Hal

Hal, they've been replaced by the guy in the Verizon Wireless commercials who asks "Can you hear me now?".

point made to me by someone while discussing VoIP (heatedly)

"In an office, phones go out, folks can still work on their computers. Computers go out, they can still do business with telephones, using paper and pencil. If the computers ARE the phone switch, both go out, folks are in suspense, and everybody looks to go home early."

Sooooooo, Steve. Shall I be expecting your call in the near future? :dance:

It seems like VoIP is a completely polar experience. Either it works great for you, or you die a horrible death.

Guess its one of those things with no real middle ground.

Just as a casual observation, it seems like those who are more willing to get in-depth with VoIP tend to have better experiences then those who approach it as a plug-and-play kind of deal. But the same can be said for any TDM system as well. Implementation is the key

Ed, PM sent.

just had a location install a Shoretel VoIP system and add our IVR into the mix. Our 4 port device and 1 port for fax/modem could not use more than 2 ports total. Something about how many licenses the site had purchased for analog sets.

Wow, I wonder how often these licenses will require upgrading/renewing/etc.

Frank, did you explain BOHICA to the customer? John C. (Not Garand)

Great conversation thread! I am not a telco business guy, but am the telco guy for the small manufacturing company for which I work (Northern Tel SL-1). I also support the computer network, and mostly provide manufacturing support and improvement.
Ever since I started doing anything telco (about 25 years ago, with an SL-1, a TIE key system, an Electra system) I was amazed at how primitive the programming interface was, but mostly how convoluted and spagetti like changes were (like:to enable a feature you have to make 4 changes in different places). Maybe the newer SL-1 PC interface fixes all this (I got old software on mine), but the NEC DSX-40 system I just bought (and had high hopes for it being much easier to program and talk to) has exactly the same program interface as the TIE and Electra of 20 years ago. (note: it does have a nice PC/ethernet interface so I can talk to it through a menu setup instead of a keypad!....but it is the exact same 1212-01 type programs steps menuized, not made simpler or more logical.
As far as I can tell,, all the phone system code was written way back when and it continues to be used in the same form.
Now as to IP phones; I haven't set up any, but they can emulate existing phone setup code, or make up their own setup system which I am betting will be clean and easy to program (for the good ones). Since the old style phone system mfgs have not made things easier, the new kids will ultimately do it.
gr

, gr. Please take this bit of information in context.

[QUOTE] programs steps menuized, not made simpler or more logical.

Well, gr, logical to whom?

1) You admit you were raised on the Northern Telecom SL-1. The software is written east of the Lakes by Francophone's.....therefore it is written in a reverse thought process, like all Latin-based languages.

2) Your Oriental systems of the past (and today) are based on European telephony (as most of the electronics in the Orient). Remember, the Japanese still drive on the wrong side of the road because their auto industry started with imported English technology. These are the people that copy anything and everything, including the defects.

Simpler , for whom?

1) The only system (PBX) that I have ever worked on that was simpler (the telephony equivalent of DOS) was the original DBX by Stromberg Carlson. The software was written to match telecom grade hardware, not hardware to match the software as most computer companies that manufacturer telecom products do.

2) If you truly know telecom and it's protocols it does make sense therefore it is simple. Undoubtedly you are familiar with IP (Internet Protocol). Once you learn the TP (Telecom Protocol) and understand how your switch interfaces and interacts with the telecom network it makes a lot more sense than the "cloud" that CGs use to show the Internet.

Glad you stuck around, gr, 25 years is a long time for the computer world, but just a blink in the telephony world.

Please enjoy the board, keep your sense of humor about you, and join in with your experience.

:thumb:

I used to be quite good at creating computer programs in Basic and Quick Basic way back when. I certainly wouldn't want to do that to program a phone system.

Early electronic key systems (what you are refering to) were quite primitive and convoluted in their programming, particularly the off-shore brands. The difficulty in understanding was made magnitudes worse because of poorly written and translated manuals.

The situation has improved with most major manufacturers as new products were introduced. Many TDM systems can easily be programmed without a PC which is the preferred method.

But now we take a giant step backward. With products such as the Avaya IPO you are back to writing code and needing a PC to make it work. That's all because it's the only thing that makes sense to the people who the systems are intended to be programmed by.

-Hal

I did not take the time to explain BOHICA, but, by time we complete this installation, I am sure the end-user will be "wide open".

This is a fantastic thread!!!! I'm an old time telephone guy who has learned and is constantly learning the VOIP side of the industry. First of all let me say that I believe there will be a need for us telephony types for a very long while yet. BUT, the industry of communications is still undergoing change, and that is nothing new. From the days when crossbar switching took over from step offices and then gave way to ESS Switching to todays evolution to VOIP.

In 1977 I sat in a conference room in Basking Ridge, New Jersey and listened to a guy named Arch Mcgill (THE architect of divestiture) talk about the worlds of telephone and data going through something then called convergence. Since that meeting I have watched this as it has unfolded and I am excited and thrilled to have been a part of that and to continue to be a part of it.

Our little midwest company started doing Voice over Frame Relay when MCI said that they would NEVER support THAT technology!! Then,, 11 years ago we began communicating with our branch offices using VOIP provided through the use of Multitech VOIP boxes. Today we sell and maintain BOTH "legacy" PBX's AND VOIP Systems.

I have a lot more that I'd like to say about our converging industries, but I have already gone on for far too long. I'll finish by saying, there is room for ALL of us and a LOT we each lear about the others world, it's exciting!!!

Am I alone in thinking that the programming interface should do the work of identifying cross-dependancies for you? Most systems pretty much do that in the feature document as the last lines (as; related features, or required features/settings). So, these interactions should be available at least as a pop-up in the programming window, and for sure as a warning if a feature won't work at all unless other features are turned on. With the current horsepower of the PC it would be rather easy to do this kind of interface.(old equipment at least has the excuse that the memory and cpu power were not available.

And thats why I think IP phones will prevail for a whole lot of installations; some will come out with much easier system setup (and yes this means a lot of users/IT guys will be able to set up and maintain a phone system).
gr

grief, you are sounding like a CG wanting phone systems to match your knowledge/skills/desires

maybe THIS is why an experienced phone guy is worth more than a CG. (though most IT guys will argue this point)