I have a customer with 8 stores. The main store has an IPO 406 V5 with a PRI. The other 7 stores are getting VOIP hosted systems and need to communicate with the main store via 4 digit dialing. Is there a way to enhance the 406 to allow this type of dialing between all stores, and keep the current 6400 series phones? Calls need to be transferred between all stores. paging across the network would be nice, but not necessary. Transferring calls direct to someone's voice mail box needs to happen as well, again, across the network between all stores.
Looking for low cost ideas at this point. If no low cost, can I change the control module only, keep the 6400 series phones, and be able to accomplish what I need?
Can I do this if I upgrade to IP phones?
Thanks in advance.

Ditch the hosted, put IPO's in all 8 locations and it will work like a charm, paging and all.

To have a chance of functioning as you describe, you need the equivalent of Tie Trunks between IPO and hosted vendor's "PBX". If the hosted vendor supports QSIG, that is the most realistic. If hosted vendor doesn't support trunks, upgrading IPO won't help. As mdaniel says, best results would come from an all-IPOffice solution.
Mike

From your description of the scenario it looks like the customer has been looking at "low cost" from the start. Whatever the outcome with the hosted it is not going to get them the features you mention, that will only successfully be deployed using IPO's at each site, or remote VoIP phones off of the main IPO at least. And further, it will not end up to be low cost because it will not work like they want and end up costing way more time and money than they are being proposed to make it work 1/2 the way they are desiring.

If they insist on going the hosted route I would walk away. Nicely let them know that you do not think they will be happy with the outcome and that you will be there for them when they decide to deploy a system that will work to their full satisfaction.

With that in thought, why not host the remote sites off the main site? It will work better than them having hosted systems at each site with NO tie into the main site. Then if they are not getting good sounding service they can always install a local IPO at the remote sites without having to toss the SIP telephones from the hosted company.

Steve

In WI, TDS Metrocom (telecom, whatever) is doing beta on a gateway that would be able to tie an IP Office to their hosted network, to allow for just that scenario.

Your asking for problems with this customer. Go all IPO or you will have a big problem.
Sometimes telling the Customer the problems they will be facing is better then you explaining it later when finger pointint starts.

And hosted isn't low cost long term.. Your customer might be suprised just how much they will spend every month.. for the duration of the system!

go IPO and let them own their own equipment.

Actually from what was mentioned by the OP hosted could give them all of the features they are wanting. And you should be able to tie them with SIP trunks. But I do agree with the majority here they need to go all IPO or all hosted for best results.

I am a huge hater of hosted service having tested it in our office. Go IP Office and you won't be sorry. Go hosted and you WILL be sorry. I am also not convinced with SIP trunks.

We actually do hosted and IPO along with a couple of other premise based solutions. Hosted is only as good as the infrastructure carrying the data. The same can be said with SIP trunking. Its all about QoS. There are many companies that do hosted that have no control over the "pipe" or they don't want to touch the LAN and they sometimes can't deliver a stable product. QoS is the name of the game. QoS is extremely easy to implement when when it is on a premise based piece of equipment. We have about 65 SIP phones in our office running on our hosted product right now and it runs practically flawlessly, but we have control from bottom to top. I actually prefer a premise based solution but our 2 main competitors do not even advertise a premise based solution anymore. Therefore we are pushing hosted as well. Seems to be the way things are moving.

Not moving that way here. I certainly understand and agree that you must have QoS. The issue is that some carriers either are not set up correctly for QoS or they don't know how to correctly set it up. There are pros and cons of hosted. They only thing is that the cons outweigh the pros in my humble opinion.

This will work if all locations are On Net with one provider. Help your customer screen the hosted providers by talking with their engineers. In your area I would call www.telcentris.com

Let me know if I can help.

This will work if all locations are On Net with one provider. Help your customer screen the hosted providers by talking with their engineers. In your area I would call www.telcentris.com

Let me know if I can help.

This will work if all locations are On Net with one provider. Help your customer screen the hosted providers by talking with their engineers. In your area I would call www.telcentris.com

Let me know if I can help.

Incredible responses.
Thanks to all that replied.
I think the customer is going with the hosted system. At least at 1 of their locations to start. This will be a trial site to see if they really want to move forward and change all the other sites to the hosted system. The hosted provider has been in business for 20 years and I work with them on a regular basis, so I have confidence in their ability to support this project.
The current IPO is not stable. So for it to be the hub for all the other locations would be asking for more trouble.
Yes the monthly cost for the hosted route is significant, but at least there is maintenance that is included. Along with 24/7 support (me).
Thanks again, wish me luck.

Just a follow up to the above posts; the customer has in fact agreed to go with VOIP at all 8 stores, with the exception of the IPO 406 they currently have in the main store, for now. The other stores have an on site PBX with a PRI and T1 connection. We are using Aastra phones to give them the buttons they are used to seeing on the old style phones they had. We have cut over 3 stores and they seem happy with the performance, so far. I'm still looking into a simple integration for the IP406, and am wondering if the PRI can carry the 4 digit extensions coming in from the other stores? If I program the inbound call routing to see the 4 digits and treat them like DID's, and send them to the receptionist in the IPO, will that work? We are also looking at installing a router of sorts between the IPO and the PRI interface. Plug the PRI from the provider into the router, then program the router to provide a PRI out to the IPO406.
In theory this should work, I'm just wondering if anyone as actually done this. The network side is stable and under 1 provider's care, so we should be okay with the connectivity between stores.
Reason to keep the IP406 is that in about a year, the main store will undertake a remodel and demo of one of the buildings. The customer doesn't want to pay to install cat 5 cable for VOIP phones right now, and therefore wants to keep the IP406 for awhile.
I know, band aid scenario.
Thanks again, for all the suggestions.

I don't know what "Router" you'd use with a PRI - maybe an Adtran Atlas 550. Inbound routing is easy. It's getting OUTBOUND routing to work - you'll need the carrier at the other end of the PRI to route appropriately. This is not an inexpensive solution...