atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums VOIP Phones & IP PBX VoIP & Cloud Phones, Hosted PBX, General IP Phones What's so good about VoIP phone systems?

I've read a lot of the discussions here about VoIP, with some arguing that VoIP systems/phones can do the same types of things a TDM system/phone can. What I'm wondering about is what can a VoIP system do that a TDM system can't.

Specifically, here's some questions (and I'm sure there's plenty more) that I was hoping someone can enlighten me about:

Can I setup a TDM system to ring simultaneously a desktop phone and a user's cell phone?

If I can do that, and the called party doesn't answer, can that call be delivered to voicemail on the phone system, not the user's cell phone?

Can a TDM system user "log on" to any phone in the organization and see his/her message waiting lights, have calls follow to that phone, etc?

Can a TDM system allow for users to use soft phones through a Laptop for example, or allow one to work at home?

Can a TDM system allow for users in multiple locations to act as part of a single inside sales queue, even if that person happens to be at home?

Can a TDM system allow for users to access a web site to manage their call settings (such as forward targets)?

I'm asking because these are capabilities that folks at my employer have told me they'd like in a new phone system. I'm an IT type, but really don't favor IP over traditional phone systems. I just want to something that will fit what my "customers" want to do.

You dont have to have a full VoIP system to do all of that. The Toshiba CIX(and im sure many others) can do all of what you described. A MAS and FearureFlex will take care of the simultanious ring and the Hot Desk application. An ACD system of some sort will take care of the queue's. Equip the CIX with an IPU card for remote users (IPT and SoftIP). MyPhone Manager for the changeable call settings.

As stated above, im sure that many other brands of PBX other than Toshiba have the capability of accomplishing all of this. The tricky part is finding the right installer to get it done and get it done right.

I've looked at some of the requirements for Voice over IP to the desktop from a network standpoint and it seems awfully expensive with the requirement for PoE switches, adding network drops to replace Cat3 for existing infrastructure, and the like. It just seems to me that there has to be some kind of benefit that one would get to justify the cost. Perhaps unified communications and presence? I'm not even sure if that makes sense as it adds additional management to the equation.

Steve:

Yes to most of the above. Our only limitation would be in regard to your first item about simultaneous ringing of TDM and cell phones. This feature would require that your lines be delivered via PRI, which would likely be the case anyway.

The last requirement can be done, but I'd be lying to you if I were to have you believe that an end-user could do it without messing something up.

I know what you are saying. However, the Toshiba MyPhone Manager can be restricted so that the end-user can only access and change certain parameters.

Thanks guys. That of course leads me to ask what CAN a VoIP-only system do that a straight TDM or hybrid system can't? What's the big selling point?

Personally I don't see any huge benefit to having VoIP to the desktop. There are some real benefits to having certain VoIP capabilities on a PBX though.

Remote users for one. Sales people in different parts of the country all connected to the same PBX.

Netowrking PBX's via IP. How much would you save if you have an office in Minnesota and another in Texas with both PBX's networked so that you never had pay any LD between the 2 offices ever again. Same with a centralized vm, only have to buy one vm that will handle both of these locations.

Traveling employees with SoftIP's on their laptop so that they have an office ext. where ever they are.

These are just some of the benefits that you can get out of a PBX that is only part VoIP.

Yep, we've got the infrastructure to run voice between our locations as the WAN will support it. IP trunking is what leads me to want a system that's capable of IP. I've just been having a hard time finding anything that would make me think that IP to the desktop is a necessity.

Steve, it all depends upon who is selling it. Does VOIP to the desktop work? Yes, it does. Is it worth the added expense for the infrastructure? Well, the jury is still out on that.

You have mentioned in the past how your organization is set up. I remember that albeit outdated, the systems themselves are working fine; it's your Verizon issues that bring the most headaches. That's understandable. We have lost our service twice this week for the same reason.

Still, you are obviously seeing the benefit of working with tried and true technology. I've never seen you come here in nearly two years with a phone hardware question. That alone speaks volumes.

By utilizing TDM as the core of the system(s) and using the benefits gained through IP networking, your company receives the best of both worlds. My wife has not had to come to our office in over two years due to our ability to run remote IP phones from our TDM system. She has a wireless IP phone that she can use at Starbucks. Then there are soft phone programs. Regardless, they all operate from the core TDM system.

I'll be the first to admit that pure IP systems DO provide centralized management and for that reason, they are good. With TDM, there are still separate management utilities required in most cases. Truth be known, pure IP systems are probably easier to manage for a person of your level of expertise. At the same time, I'd bet that you could easily pick up on mixing TDM and IP from a system management perspective.

If you were to stick with hybrid (TDM + IP) systems at your remote branches, the same at your main location and use stand-alone IP phones or soft phones for remote personnel, you would be fine. You certainly would never have to deal with a loss of everything if any components of the system(s)failed.

You are at a tough crossroads for sure. With the size of your company, there's not going to be room for mistakes. You'll find that the general consensus in this forum is that one should not place all of their eggs in one basket. I'm pretty sure that you are already leaning that way.

Steve:

I agree with Ed's comments (above), you're best bet would be to look into any number of "converged" systems, which is what we typically sell when it comes to using IP technology... Basically the best of both worlds, traditional TDM to the desktop and remote IP phones, softphones, and the like whether it be a home office, traveling sales person, or a small office across town with only a few VoIP phones running from the main switch.

Thanks for the input. I can't tell you how nice it is to have level-headed advice in this regard. This forum is excellent in that regard.

Ed, you're correct with respect to our phone system being solid as a rock. We really don't have an issue with it other than the technology is dated. I suspect that any system we install would be a step up in that regard.

As for the management of the system, I am still grapling with how a company of our size handles that. I do plan on doing the MAC work myself, to the extent that I can. I would imagine that most systems can be managed over the network for that work. I would leave the configuration to the experts. Right now we have several different companies providing support for our various phone systems and locations (roughly from New York city to Richmond, geographically speaking).

I suppose it depends on the type of system and whether there's a national company that can handle the support. Of course, I could find local folks in each area to handle the specific pieces, but someone has to know the overall setup.

As far as redundancy is concernered, once we expand the system to cover multiple locations I would like to see a secondary site that could be the failover if the main site's system failed. That's certainly down the road a ways but whatever system I choose now must be able to handle such contingencies.

Phonesol, we do have some small offices with 2-3 people that might well be suited to IP phones tied to the main office. Of course I'd want a backup plan if the network fails.

Thanks again for the information.

By the way Ed, we still haven't signed a lease on a new building yet. I'll send you an email once that happens. We're still looking at space in the Arundel Mills area.

I specialized in Very Large Voice Networks for years when I was with GTE. We had T-1s between sites and used them for intra office dialing, for a common VMS, for TEHO (Tail End Hop Offs)to eliminate or reduce LD charges etc. We also switched data through our voice networks as well as a host of other things.

Sure, you had to pay for the intra-site T's, but you had guaranteed connections that you knew were going to get through.

If you're putting in Data T's between locations and sharing them - what's the difference? As long as you leave enough channels for Voice.

If you're depending on the Internet to route your voice calls and data traffic from location to location - good luck. Sometimes it'll work fine and sometimes it won't work at all.

If that's OK for your business, then go for it.


Sam

Sam, we've got a Qwest PRN (private routed network) for our data connections. The Qwest folks have suggested that we can put QOS on these circuits to accomodate voice. Since we're a Citrix shop, we really only have Citrix and Printing traffic between locations currently, so the QOS should be pretty straight-forward. It makes sense to me to use these lines since we'll be paying for them for data anyway. We'd certainly need to increase the bandwidth, but that cost is incrementally less at higher bandwidths, especially since we're paying loop charges no matter the bandwidth.

I am interested in using the WAN to route calls for the reasons you specified. As far as TEHO is concerned I suppose a system with fairly robust LCR is in order.

Regardless of how you go to the desktop or link remote offices, never use SIP for your trunks. The one exception is if your pulling sip directly from the provider (I.E. Fiber/Copper directly to your provider's gateway, with no internet/etc). A caller getting someone's voicemail usually wont think twice, but a caller getting a fast busy or disconnection message will wonder.

As far as everything else I'd just go hybrid. Get the best of both worlds like others have said. Use TDM where it makes sense and VoIP where it does.

Steve -

Is Qwest's Private Routed Network a "real" network or a virtual one?

Sam

I'm guessing that's what marketing calls MPLS.

Not MPLS to our network, though I believe it is at Qwest's core. It's like an Internet VPN except that the traffic remains entirely on Qwest's internal network. As such, all of our sites are 2 hops from hub to spoke.

We can (and do) have our remote sites configured to use a local Internet hopoff in the event that the hub end of the link goes down - the spoke ends would connect out through the public Internet then to the hub site through a dedicated Internet T1 there. That is just for emergencies though.

I guess that's a long way of saying yes, it's a "real" network, though not in the same light as MPLS or PPP links per se.

Interesting... I'll have to call qwest and have them give me some info then.

Great discussion, and thank you Steve for posting this topic.

I have a question whereby I hope someone can dispel one of my personal doubts about VoIP (and please bare with me, in that I presently work in a strictly TDM environment):

Can someone provide some current info regarding the "truth or myth" about misrouted VoIP emergency 911 calls to the wrong PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point); to include inaccurate delivery of the calling number and location information?

Other than the November 28, 2005 FCC ruling requiring that 911 service be a mandatory VoIP feature, and that interconnecting VoIP providers disclose their full 911 dialing capabilities to their customers, has the potential for these so-called VoIP misrouted 911 call issues been resolved?

Here's what I could find from the FCC website's VoIP/911 Consumer Advisory:

Because VoIP service works differently from traditional phone service, consumers who use it should be aware that VoIP 911 service may also work differently from traditional 911 service. The FCC and VoIP service providers are striving to eliminate these differences, but some of them are:

VoIP 911 call may not connect to the PSAP;
VoIP 911 service may ring to the administrative line of the PSAP, which may not be staffed after hours, or by trained 911 operators;
VoIP 911 service correctly connects to the PSAP, but does not automatically transmit the user’s phone number and/or location information;
VoIP customers may need to provide location or other information to their VoIP providers, and update this information if they change locations, for their VoIP 911 service to function properly;
VoIP service may not work during a power outage, or when the Internet connection fails or becomes overloaded.

Here\'s a link to the entire Consumer Advisory. I'm just curious as to where we currently are with these issues with VoIP's 911 dialing.

I highly value this enormous group's input!

Mike -

This can be a real problem especially if you have users who travel between multiple branches and take there physical phone with them. The problem is the partition the users are in points them to a gateway (route pattern, route list, route group) that is local to where the phone was originally configured. Until recently there was no way to route a call to a PSAP that was local to the gateway they were at. In the Cisco world the solution is Cisco Emergency responder. There are a couple of ways you can do this but the bottom line all of your MAC addresses are automatically routed to the correct PSAP usually by the switch you are on.

https://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/voicesw/ps842/index.html

HTH

I always have a e911 waiver for VoIP clients. If they want to maintain 911 compatibility then I tell them they will need a POTS line and ATA at the site where the stationary phones will be at.

Interestingly, I spoke to a Qwest tech recently when we were upgrading bandwidth at one of our sites. The guy told me that Qwest might try to get me to move to a full MPLS network to support voice but that in his experience the PRN worked fine for this. I don't think the QOS is as robust with the PRN, but it should work ok in my environment. Since our remote sites connect to the hub via Citrix, the only protocol traffic we have to manage is Citrix, printing, and voice.

Also of note, our account rep was telling me that all the LD traffic to Qwest is routes as IP on their side of things. We do have a dedicated T1 for LD at my site and I haven't had any problems with that in the 6 years or so that we've had it.

I do see some jitter between site and was wondering if anyone know what is considered "acceptable" for this. Of course I'm only measuring jitter by periodic ping tests, so that may not be too accurate. Average response times between sites are anywhere from 12ms to 70ms depending on the site (most are below 25ms), which I suppose is OK for voice packets. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

I'm definately not an expert, but have dealt with jitter a couple of times with clients using SIP. From speaking with a tech at the SIP provider, anything less then 70ms should provide solid voice tranlation. Over 100ms will definately result in packet loss and dropped calls. Hopefully this is what you're looking for. This SIP company uses a program called smokeping, which provides ongoing results for however long you want it to run. We've been able to narrow issues down pretty good with it.

Majic Jack looks at the computer its connected to,
if its not in the registry it ask for the address,
if its been there before it put puts that address
in the 911 display.

I have done TDM for going on 2 decades, and started my first VOIP hardware using extenders to have digital stations at remote offices across the data network on a Toshiba 280 system. I have seen VOIP move from a cool anomoly to a neccesity to augment TDM systems in many situations in order to provide valued added cost effective ways to utilize the customer existing communications infrastructure. That infrastructure does include the public IP access which can provide VPN access for remote/home workers. That is the extent to which I would use the Public IP space, but other than that, IP is what is making TDM compete, and offer new values, and innovations in a way that offers the best of both worlds.

IP trunking is part of the TDM foundation going forward as much as a butt set is in my opinion. That does not require a IP-ONLY PBX which I have worked with as well, but simply a hybrid system in order to have the best of both worlds. I like the IP-only systems I have worked with namely shoretel, but I would not really buy it myself even though I have been invovled in projects where it has served the customer well, and without major issues, or complaints. User interfaces seem to be easier for the end user with IP only systems, and I think that has to do with their software background VS TDM background causing an experience gap in making user applications user friendly. Support from traditional TDM system manufacturers is a cut above the IP only providors, and that is probably from the culture of TDM VS IP in which TDM feels dial tone is an inalienable right. Most IP only systems need to have redundancy in order to be as reliable as TDM, and most of the leaders in IP agree.

That said, my opinion is that hybrids like Avayas IP Office are the wave of the future, and also a great first venture for any organization. I mention the IPO because I support it myself, but it is not the only hybrid out there. I would recomend to anyone looking to new technology to check out the IP Office, and maybe start by hanging one off their main site PBX to use its remote worker, and HUGE conference bridge capabilities that come right in the box without any licensing needed. I know of no more cost effectibve way to add a 64 channel conference bridge, and get to evaluate the platform for other deployments at the same time.

So you recommend the IP Office over the ShoreTel?

I would not say that in all cases, but in almost all cases I would. The Shoretel does expand to more exts than the IPO, but then I would have to bring other systems like the Avaya CM into the picture to consider in the specific application where more exts are required than the IPO can handle.

My signature line does however overide any statements made about any system itself. I can not, and do not recomend any system whatsoever as they can never meet your needs. It takes a great technician to do that with the help of a great project manager without which you are basicaly screwed. The PM, and the tech can be the same person, and often times a PM who was not ever a tech is never going to be a great PM.
The elements of importance are listed in order of least to most importance.
Sales person
Hardware
Project Manager
Technician
I am not sure if the salesperson is low enough on the list.

The specific scenario, and how the individual system fits in that scenario is the only way to decide the best system for only that scenario. There is no blanket statement that covers all applications, or scenarios.

Another question about Shoretel is one may wish to google it, and look into some recent law suits filed against them in reference to their Initial Public Offering going public(SHOR). There stock fell about 70% in a short period recently. I do not claim to know exactly what that means for Shoretel, or it's long term future, as I am not an expert in that area. I do wonder if it has any bearing on their future stability, and ability to support, and progress going forward.

They are however certainly the least implemented system of any on this forum by multiple factors, and represent about one grain of sand in market share in all the deserts, and beaches of the world representing currently implemented systems worldwide. I would bet the PartnerII which has been discontinued for maybe 15 years has more representation in the matter of currently working systems in the field, and it will probably take Shoretel a decade to catch up to the PartnerII numbers of active systems, even though the PartnerII is being replaced as time goes by reducing its deployed numbers.

With the high cost of multi-line appearance VoIP phones, traditional digital keysets are much less expensive.

Whiteywhite,
Have you been shown a ShoreTel demo; if not I would highly recommend one. I have been installing ShoreTel for 3 years now and things are not slowing down. Now with version 8 coming out in June with IM and video point to point, this system rocks. The only thing I think they are weak in is their reporting. Just my 2 cents

MGERE,
I would say Shoretel conference capabilities are a bit lacking when you look at the resources it takes away from other functions, or price of it vs say the IPO, or other systems. The analog stations resources level seems to be a bit high as well in my opinion, that is just my opinion also. Reporting I would not argue with you about, as I have heard some complaints from users in that regard as well. The only other concern is for the less than cutting edge network of course that does not have POE switches for their entire network, I do not really believe in VOIP cost effectiveness unless the network is converged not seperate voice, and data as it doubles the network hardware required, as well as cable runs.

VOIP is about convergance, or it is about having twice the cabling, network hardware, and P2P costs.

mgere...I sell ShoreTel. We got involved when they were called Shoreline 5 years ago. Easy product to demo.
ShoreTel has addressed the analog ports issue with the release of a 24 port analog switch for xxxx. Avaya IPO cannot be compared to ST...if you are going to compare ShoreTel to Avaya you need to compare to Communications Manager.

(Edited to delete pricing)

Whitey,
XXXX just makes the issue now the fact that the resource level which is too high is the financial resources in my opinion.

I agree the ST does not compare to the Avaya IPO in many respects. The cost factor of the ST to provide a cost effective conference bridge, and many other cabilities is not even going to compare with the IPO within the IPO's market sector which is SMBS. When you take the IPO out of the SMBS market it does not stand up to the ST as the ST can handle more users. Beyond that the IPO stands up well against the ST or any other system. I have worked implementations that were IPO which was bid against ST by the same salesman, or different salesman both within the same vendor and against other vendors. I have worked implementations that were ST which was bid against IPO by the same salesman, or different salesman both within the same vendor and against other vendors. Some the IPO is a better fit, and some the ST, even though we sold both. When taken out of the SMBS market sector you are correct it is another system which the ST can then compete with as the CM is Avayas solution beyond the SMBS market sector. ST is more along the priceline of the CM for many of its features like conference bridges, etc., and that makes sense as the ST does not specialize, or price point in the SMBS market, but the enterprise market. In that market it does not compete with the IPO, and so I do see your point of comparison in that light.

I want to make it clear that I like the ST, and feel it has applications for which it is very effective, just like the IPO has those, as many systems do have their defining strengths as well as weaknesses. Against the ST the IPO lacks the ability to grow to the size of the ST, in which case the Avaya option is the CM, and that is a different comparison. One which I will defer to those who have worked on CM, and ST implementations, as if I were to try to speak like an expert on systems I have never worked on the implementations of I would sound like a salesman, and everyone knows, that is not a qualified position to be arguing the comparisons of systems in specific applications of a specific solution scenario. I prefer to speak about what I know, and leave the other to the sales guys.


(edited to delete pricing)

Point well takem. In my opinion the ease of use...ease of management...ease of installation....ease of upgrades..and the desktop tools speak to the strengths of ST.

If you are specifically intrigued with the built in conferencing ability and you are looking for a red hold button...then buy IPO.

Alright folks...I went through and cut a few posts that were of no value at all. We all have our opinions but please stop the personal back and forth jabs. If you desire to disagree with each and wish to carry on please use the PM feature and keep it out of the public view.

In my experience using the IPO, managing the IPO, installing the IPO, upgrading the IPO, using the IPO user applications.
Training; users applications, technicians, administrators, the IPO is very easy to do all of these things. The same is true of the ST as well.