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

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