Benefits of VOIP 3

[DomP]

If you had to summarize the benefits and pitfalls of VOIP what would they be? And is VOIP much more attractive/compelling to organizations that have multiple sites compared to an organization that only has one site.

Your insights would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Dom

 

[DomP]

Thanks.

Regarding the cable when I had our current office cables 3 1/2 years ago everything was cat5e as we all expected to be here longer than it turned out. I think your point about would anyone notice is valid. It's hard to say. It's just that pc's/switches, etc, are all running at gig speed and faster in the future. Between our e-mail system, MS SQL database(s) and just plain old file/print issues and who knows what tomorrow brings I'm not comfortable with a wiring solution that tops out at 100meg.

Dom

 

[ccmuser]

Cat5e will run most gige solutions.. So cat5e should me a MIN not a MAX....

 

[DomP]

Understood, the 5e 3 1/2 years ago was to make sure we could run at 1 gig today.

 

[todd1019]

I have to agree with Lopes on this one also. I have around 20 sites and using VOIP for calling between the sites has been mentioned. We currently pay about .024 per minute for these on network calls. If I moved this to VOIP the per minute charge would go away and the traditional voice circuits may go away, but every border router would need to support QOS for VOIP and all the current phone system setups changed to connect to the border routers at their site. I cant say that the border routers currently support QOS. Essentially I would need to take a $3000.00 router and spend another 2k - 3k easy to get these routers to the level they need to be to support the QOS. I think the expediture I have stated for the routers is conservative at best. In some cases I may have to purchase completely new routers. If I run this over my existing frame network this may affect my bandwidth for data and cause me to add additional data connectivity to support the added traffic on the WAN or maybe even convert my WAN to an EVPN, MPLS,etc offering. So in the end it may be wash and more work to get there than our staff can handle currently. Also our data group works on our PBX's. It is called the engineering group and encompasses all aspects of connectivity.

 

[ccmuser]

todd what speed are your sites?

 

[Dunstan]

I have saved in excess of 600,000 a year by implementing VOIP and replacing costlier FX trunking, tie lines et al. For companys who have many sites around the woprld you CAN achieve those pie in the sky savings. I am not talking about BS ROI tools but actual hard dollars in reduction in LEC charges...Consolidation and better utilization of trunking...Shared applications etc.


VOIP is not a one size fits all scenario....in many cases it isnt worth it...or it is not the right fit for the organization. But I can speak to first hand experiences with at least two of my employers where we are saving after capital expenditures for Network and switch upgrades and the voip implementation in excess of $600,000 annually.

Lots of bs hype surounding VOIP....but there is also firm examples of the savings being VERY real. With the right design and implementation much of what is said about voip savings are real.

 

[todd1019]

ccmuser

That would take some discussion. Currently we have a frame-relay network in place but the PVC's are sized accordingly. COuld be a 56k PVC to a small remote site or a full T or higher to a larger facility.

 

[ccmuser]

t1 frame sites and you think it will cost you 3000 to upgrade you IOS to support QOS that you need? New 1700 will cost you less then that. and I am pretty sure your older 2500 or 4000 will support MLPPP over virtual templates to give you the QOS features you need.. You may need to perform an IOS upgrade. though.
and if you think your router will need $2000 to $3000 in upgrades.....How can you think it is worth $3000?
Does your company not phase out and depreciate old equip?

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

I'm glad there's still mass confusion in the industry about the question: Benefits of VoIP. It's a broadstroke question and I'm not sure where to begin.

Are there benefits ? Yes.

VoIP is a large space and so is the gap that remains there.

 

[ccmuser]

Unfortunatly most of the "GAPS" are an untrained staff.
Most features in you tradional PBX are available in voip system. I really don't see the gaps as being an IP problem. Botton line we are talking about applications here. What gaps are you referring too?

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

GAPS:

1. Advanced features are found not ALL of the BASIC telephony ~ traditional features.

2. TRUE COST of OWNERSHIP - the myths painted are how cheap or less expensive IP is. Most are myths. There are savings but they are overstated or misunderstood.

3. CONVERGENCE - there still remains a clash between IP and traditional folks. Both struggling to adopt, adapt, change, move on, etc.

4. MANAGEABILITY - IP-PBXs that you bring up are more complicated and yes, difficult to manage. Not everyone is trained- there are no experts. The complexity is far greater than what most realize.

5. MENTALITY - "oh it's another software bug" or "oh, just reboot the IP-PBX" NO, NO, NO ! This is the mentality of IT and what users, customers, and anyone using traditional telecom expects is something they view as their birthright- consisent and reliable dialtone.

6. STANDARDS - the ethernet world loves to tout "standards" and "we're not PROPRIETARY !" YES- you/they are. The packet sets are PROPRIETARY. Big deal- anyway, there are TOO many STANDARDS.

7. QUALITY - IP-PBX manufacturers : how many BILLIONS of telephone sets, boxes, cards, etc have they manufactured for how many YEARS ?

There remains a lot of WORK to be done. VoIP and IP-PBXs are imperfect and all the marketing HO-HAW about 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation is HO-HAW too. Stability and Consistency are key.

Not that VoIP / IP-PBXs can't deliver to some-- it must be a deliverable commodity to ALL and ALL of the time.

Training doesn't resolve ALL these issues. Train the manufacturers to make AutoNegotiation and AutoSensing and S-O-F-T-W-A-R-E BUG free and work ALL the time.

APPLICATIONS are another BIG opportunity for VoIP and IP-PBXs BUT what isn't pointed out is the inegrity of the APPs, how many APPs, how many VENDORS and HOW OPEN this all becomes ? Then- bring on SIP now... how does one manage this ? More training ?

These are some of the gaps I am referring too.

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

As for the BENEFITS question:

IP Telephony is fast track and has been for six years in the US market. The first five years consisted of "greenfield" or bleeding edge deployments of IP-PBXs.

Moves-Adds-Changes (MACs) as known in traditional telecom as a key primary REVENUE indicator for interconnects. Deploying IP-PBXs reduces the MACs revenue for the vendor/interconnects while it also reduces the customer ownership or maintenance cost (however the accounting method charges the item).

Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) - hands down since many IP-PBXs are designed around the Ethernet standards- integration to Outlook, Goldmine and many other apps that MUST be TAPI compliant (IN and OUT bound) and or have third party software to make them LINK. Either way- messaging becomes CONVERGED almost to a fine degree. Other applications unfold too.

Transmission Costs - traditionally, Average Cost Per Call Minute (ACPCM) has been the driving force of ALL carriers. Customers have a current day myopic view of driving that cost per call minute to 1 or 2 cents a minute and yet with all the wished for services and benefits that simply aren't happening. Inspite of this old model- the new model (IP Telephony) is, does, and will provide:

a) FASTER processing and call setup, completion, and disconnect.

b) Call Quality is equal to or superior over former ETN, SDN type networks

c) COSTS for the BACKBONE network are lower - naytime two or more modes of transmission are CONVERGED then their is a cost benefit. (Refer to Traffic Engineering methods)

Beyond all this ?

It's sexy.

 

[ccmuser]

GoTellBigDaddy I hope you avaya or nortel shop is doing well

Lets really look at what you are telling us hear. Are you telling me europe and asia is not seeing fast growth in VOIP right now? Maybe you don't travel much. But traction is building in the VOIP market everyday.

I agree sometimes for the wrong reasons. But this is not a US FAD anymore. Lets take a look line by line at what you are telling us though.

1. Advanced features are found not ALL of the BASIC telephony ~ traditional features.
What Basic features are you not finding on an IP system? Do all analog systems have the same features? Are features even called the same name across different platforms? This causes great confusion to the end user. When you are buying a PBX you need to look at you business model FIRST. Can ANY system you are thinking about purchasing fit your business needs. And don’t think “oh my old system did it this way, This is how it must be” . Bring in all the vendors. Explain what your call flow and expectations are. Listen to what they ALL have to say. And make your choice. I tend to lead toward IP systems for reasons I will cover later.

2. TRUE COST of OWNERSHIP - the myths painted are how cheap or less expensive IP is. Most are myths. There are savings but they are overstated or misunderstood.

This is a horrible statement. I think in reality the myth being Propagating is “there are not any real saving to VOIP” I will take one example to illustrate. Med size company with better then average growth. Need to upgrade their BPX for IVR functions. Lets say they have 5 remote sites. All of these sites can be handled via a single IP PBX connections and still maintain all system functions. Know need for high cost tie lines. A huge windfall saving in maint. Costs. If you doubt that one. Look at what you are paying for your PBX maint costs. Cost of management. Adds moves and changes are greatly decreased and are all managed centrally. Increased production with the ease of adding home offices/small branch offices quickly. The cost of only maintaining one transport network in carrier costs and the human cost. And last but not least Value added applications leveraging CTI.

3. CONVERGENCE - there still remains a clash between IP and traditional folks. Both struggling to adopt, adapt, change, move on, etc.
Honestly the Clash is people trying to save there job. This statement shows how we really misuse terms in this field. Converged VOICE and DATA are NOT a new thing. Carriers and large companies have been doing this for YEARS and I don’t see how we can still view this as a new technology. HMM when did they invent ATM? Does the switch/router really know the difference cause you are marking packets/cells at a different layer of transport, using we are using Ip natively now over ATM to prioritize traffic? I really don’t understand. Yes IP to the settop is new. BUT NOT CONVERGED VOICE AND DATA.

4. MANAGEABILITY - IP-PBXs that you bring up are more complicated and yes, difficult to manage. Not everyone is trained- there are no experts. The complexity is far greater than what most realize.

Let me get this straight. You are blaming the IP PBX cause you hired someone who does not know how to use it? Just cause your company did find a good employee/ consultant you really feel there are know experts? How can throw a blanket statement like that into any real discussion. I manage a consulting firm that handles outsourced voice/data support for Government. We maintain about 20,000 ip phones right now.. And I really do feel that management is simpler on my IP-pbx.

5. MENTALITY - "oh it's another software bug" or "oh, just reboot the IP-PBX" NO, NO, NO ! This is the mentality of IT and what users, customers, and anyone using traditional telecom expects is something they view as their birthright- consisent and reliable dialtone.
Again I am sorry you hired incompetent people!!!! This attitude is totally not acceptable in both DATA and VOICE. You think financial and government installation tolerate that in there data networks? I am sorry you keep those types of people around? Maybe you have not built your data network robust enough? I am not sure. But to blame human mentality on a inanimate object? VERY INTERESTING CONCEPT? Are we going to see this in the tabloids too?

6. STANDARDS - the ethernet world loves to tout "standards" and "we're not PROPRIETARY !" YES- you/they are. The packet sets are PROPRIETARY. Big deal- anyway, there are TOO many STANDARDS.

This is the Pot calling the kettle black. I did not realize that digital voice sets we standards based. Last time I tried an NEC phone on my Avaya I did not get any tone? Maybe you can come and fix that for me.

Ip is right now more standard based the conventional PBX will ever become. That does not mean that the standard are perfect? But at least they excist.

And by the way. The word you are looking for is packet Drivers. The Ethernet protocol is a pretty rigid standard. When is the last time you had vender interoprabitly problems with Ethernet? Everything but the driver/hardware is a totally OPEN standard. Maybe you don’t what the word standards based actually mean/ but drivers and hardware do not apply!!!

This one is a HORRIBLE argument.

7. QUALITY - IP-PBX manufacturers : how many BILLIONS of telephone sets, boxes, cards, etc have they manufactured for how many YEARS ?

This one I can understand your point. So is guess your still use an analog radio and phone? Why did the VOICE people not make the same claim when we moved to digital PBX’s. So if I purchase an IP PBX upgrade from Nortel, that card it is not going to manufactured as well as there Digital counterpart? I did not realize that digital components realize they are being used in the IP card and fail more often.

APPLICATIONS are another BIG opportunity for VoIP and IP-PBXs BUT what isn't pointed out is the inegrity of the APPs, how many APPs, how many VENDORS and HOW OPEN this all becomes ? Then- bring on SIP now... how does one manage this ? More training ?

Well most large scale voice apps for tradional PBX’s or ip are Vendor written. I guess that these vendors program much better when they realize they have a non IP client. They must not care about the large ip clients and only give analog people the best programs? Are you on CRACK? So much of what you are saying is not IP related!!!

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

ccmuser (TechnicalUser)

First you've made grave assumptions about my shop, which isn't the issue. So- don't assume.Second- if you need to make nasty remarks, build another website for doing. They aren't appropriate or appreciated.

VoIP like any technology can be a good thing- it isn't THE solution, it's a solution.

You can't broad brush the landscape with VoIP and IP-PBXs and expect for all to be well- that isn't the case. The same is true about traditional types that have your same mindset and arguments about "traditional telephony" cause in both cases: it just ain't so.

Benefits - as stated: the IP-PBXs in the pure IP sense- are missing numerous basic telephony features.

You and others can decide:

http://www.miercom.com/?url=reports/

Above is just one source to review and consider.

True Cost of Ownership- if it's horrible to you then perhaps you need to look at real world management. No free rides. There is a cost of taking on the responsibility of a telephone system and the cost is more than just finanacial obligations. Many networks aren't ready for VoIP. Build it and they will come seems to be your mindset. QoS ? Secondly- I don't take what the manufacturers including the Cisco Myth website as factual- it's an opinion- just like the ones stated herein.

Convergence - true, some folks may be trying to save their jobs but it isn't this simple. There's much more to convergence and understanding holistically the process of design to manufacturing to deployment to disposal.

Manageability - I don't recall placing any blame. It's a statement and I stand by it. Before I'd deploy ANY IP-PBX there will first be qualification of the customer that "thinks" they can manage it. Again- managing IP-PBXs isn't gravy or as easy as you or others paint them to be.

Ask Hank Lambert of CISCO - he's heard plenty of horror stories. They get down to basic elements in business: a) is it easy to implement (QoS), can I afford it, and after I get it- can I maintain it or what will it cost to maintain ?


Mentality - the mindset is there within the industries as you have given example.

Standards- no, the POT and the KETTLE are one in the same here. Take a peek at other key industry opinions:

"Closed Architectures, Closed Systems And Closed Minds by James. G. Waclawsky : Business Communications Review: October, 2004: pgs 57-61

No, not "packet drivers" that's your opinion. PACKET SET.

Quality - yes I am. Old and New. You are making too many assumptions again. You don't need to be offensive in your remarks, nothing is gained by this.

Applications - no again you've made many assumptions. Applications are the key to any and most businessess viability. The key in meeting these needs isn't broadstroking the canvas but in developing one by one business centric offerings that meet, fulfill and more than satisfy the demands of the business cycle(s). The "integrity" comes into play when multiple sets of hands contribute to "an application." This is the potential of IP and SIP apps. Yes, it's ALL related. If for example you review the INTEL example of the "knowledge network" of the future - IP and it's componments then you should step back. IF you still don't then you don't understand THE NETWORK and what it takes in the "process."

Chicken or the Egg ? Can't decide ? Who has the most important job ?

Hint: COGS in the wheel are all equally important.

 

[ccmuser]

First,
You don't want people to make assumptions but you gave 7 one liners on very compex topics like you are quoting the bible. How do you expect people to not make assumptions when you do not give any backing,substance or qualifing references to your comments.

Second the only remark that may be somewhat offonsive is the "are you on crack". Wich I hope you can establish as being a little sarcastic. Do you really think I was implying you are a crack head? You don't think that phrase has become a little common in americal colloquialism. If you are that soft skinned from now on I will replace with" well geez wally I really don't understand the point you are trying to make"
Come on loosen up a little!!

So are you really telling me that ethernet is more closed source then Digital PBX's? So packet sets for ethernet? Am I missing something? Or are you combining topics and concpets here and expecting people to catch on. The Concept of a packet set is a layer three. The only time a packet set and ethernet cross would be fragmentation issues and mostly when changing layer 2 transport methods.. Ie Token ring directy to ethernet, Or even ATm desktops to Ethernet. But I just see that as being such a small problem in the VOIP world. So I don't see how you can mean packet set and use ethernet as your reference. So maybe you meant packet set.. but then it just does not apply.

I never said voip is the only solution if your read my whole post you will remember I said you need to pick on business model and features first and to bring in EVERY vendor. I just think VOIP fits very will in most scenerios. And people overplay its weakness right now to position there own products/companies better.

A great number of Corp network right now ARE QOS ready. I am not saying EVERYONE should run VOIP. And EVERYONE has an immediate saving. But for MANY people the saving are real and not imagined as you are implying. You made a balnket statement in your post that tried to imply these saving are never real. I am not trying to be rude. But that is misleading and uncalled for. I agree not every site sees them.. But many do. there are no need for one line almost propoganda like statements like that.

MANAGEABILITY - IP-PBXs that you bring up are more complicated and yes, difficult to manage. Not everyone is trained- there are no experts. The complexity is far greater than what most realize.
the problem you are descibing here is really lack of skilled tech staff.. Get them trained or hire the right person. What does the "there are no experts statement mean"?

Applications.. I don't follow you here. Can you please elaborate on this?

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

I'm glad that you agree it is COMPLEX. So I do not want to make it sound PLUG~N~Play, this is the wrong message that customers receive. The reality is that MOST networks are not IP-PBX ready.

As I tried to answer initially: The lead to this thread, which is: Benefits of VoIP and the base question is:

If you had to summarize the benefits and pitfalls of VOIP what would they be?

As before- that's what I stated and briefly in summary.

Details to your questions:

1. You made assumptions about my shop, who I hire, my products, etc... No, I don't do crack, drugs or other things. I have enough lite passing between my temples already. You want me to lossen up a little ? Okay.

2. Ethernet IP-PBXs in the context are just as PROPRIETARY as the Traditional Telephony Systems. This argument or implied benefit about getting some sort of Freedom by adopting an IP-PBX over a traditional system is greatly FLAWED. IP-PBXs allow flexibility of MACs as I stated in the BENEFITS post. INTERESTING THING: Customers still call for even the basic IP-PBXs MACS because they don't want to know, take the time, or have the skillset to perform the tasks. Which is okay, it's not a bad thing. The software running traditional vs IP is Proprietary as it should be. The "packet sets" and the "traditional telephony feature set emulations" belong to their intellectual creators. Do you think that Cisco doesn't WANT to sell more phones, or any other vendor ??????? Let's look into the PROPRIETARY nature of the "voice packets" contained in the marvel of convergence with LAN packets destined for two or more different points. The voice packet handling is encrypted by most IP-PBX manufacturers. Traditional telephony uses their unique "proprietary emulation" and in either case BOTH IP and Traditional PROPRIETARY methodologies have been hacked. Cisco, Avaya, Nortel, 3Com...etc...they are NOT immune. MOST data networks were and are designed for LATENCY. Now mix the two packet sets together on one wire or two, and you have LATENCY. Add to this analog telephony connections, compleity, routers; firewalls; switches; NICS and lots of other hardware and configurations- that aren't up to the task of getting the VOICE packet set delivered to it's destination in a timely and acceptable fashion.

The business model picked is decidedly what the customers elect and making an educated decision about the PROS & CONS of either IP, traditional or "HYBRID" is ultimately in their hands.

VoIP and IP-PBXs again are two different viewpoints and VoIP is very broad in the term, meaning different things to different users. Corporations and Government wishing to utilize the "pipe" for the sake of converging bandwidth is making usually a good move. Is there a single point of failure solution - if not then reconsider. Not all networks and customers are equal but their intentions are usually very clear: a) save money, or b) do more with less, c) improve and d) prosper or differentiate the business/organization in the market. Then you have the extreme of a small Mom & Pops wanting to get FREE long distance calling to displace their landlines. Smart Move ? Not always. The, IP-PBXs again- for some qualified Networks, it's a good thing for Large Enterprise. Those thousands of phones that you are managing for the government are an example of leveraging large numbers against an old traditional telephony model. Is the government saving money after paying someone else to manage it ? I don't know- probably, hopefully, they should be. S-M enterprise it depends. BTW: The figures for QoS wide adoption in the USA are not overwhelming.

There are no experts means what is says. There are none. No one person has ALL the skillsets in every area of the IP-PBX ~ VoIP network. They don't exist. What one person can state they are an expert in this COMPLEX area ? For example: what lessons did Cisco learn from their IP secuirty vulnerability ? How about 3Com, what lessons did they learn ? What lessons did either of these companies learn when some of their VISIBLE installed customers bailed ? End to end experts in an IP Network simply do not exist, they are I suggest: PIONEERS.

APPLICATIONS: for example. PingTel is a SIP based solution offering telephones with MENUS for HOTEL/MOTEL hospitality. The guest simply depresses a "button" on the telephone to pull up the in-house restaurant MENU. Push another button to see and hear the weather report for the area. Push another button for reservations to.... Applications such as these require one or more developmental efforts and integration into one more operating systems. Layer upon layer of hands go into the integration and development efforts and the potential for complexity is there it's just not always assumed or understood by the customers.

With the opportunities that I mentioned comes RESPONSIBILITIES. The opportunities are overwhelming and vast. The new telecom world isn't here, I'll know it when I see and so will you and many others. The ability to do more for less, faster, less costly, better, higher levels of delivering the end service of the customer is the potential that is driving the adoption of SIP and IP-telephony.

COST Benefits are often overstated and not understood. A large enterprise deploying IP-PBXs and an all IP network must have the ability and wherewithal to pocket the costs of assessing the network. Then, it must deploy a proactive monitoring and managment methodology to sustain acceptable QoS levels. Again, the space you work in: 20,000 phones in one organization or government and you're the consultant: okay. Now take 2,000 customers with 20,000 phones and 2,000 locations, different types of needs and business models; there's a big difference.

I'm not stating there are no benefits, again, it dependz upon each customer- one by one. Perceptions are what they are but when the dollars are tallied and weighed, what's left ? In part, large organzations are known to "Fail to follow up on claims of cost benefits from deploying information technology within their organizaitons." The claim is easy: "we saved money." Now- prove it. That's time consuming and does require skill and effort.

Then as for hiring and training: experience doesn't come with a few cutovers or a large scale deployment. Lets come back to this 5 years from now and see who's left in the pool to hire from and these are the ones that will get the training.

The SIP statement is included because it brings up a lot of interesting things such as interoperability, intellectual property, complexity, funding, and how willing any IP-PBX manufacturer is to opening up to outsiders and how much- to develop these exciting new applications for telephone systems.

MANAGEABILITY - includes the connectivity to the supporting equipment of the IP-PBX. Think of it as ALL-ENCOMPASSING. Then, the packets: voice or data types must also be managed and monitored---continuously. As the dynamics of the business changes so do the fluctuations of traffic - IP-Voice or IP.

You've mentioned several times: Voice People. Before I was Voice-People I read punched paper tape. Data People aren't exlcusive to digital PBXs and Voice People aren't exclusive to Telephony. Ys- I still have a superhetrodyne receiver, why ? It works well- almost ALL the time, it's cost effective and extremely LOW maintenance. Am I saving money ? NO- all I need to do is unplug it. Do I benefit from it ? Yes. Do I have telephones older than 100 years ? YES. Do they work ? YES. AM I saving money ? I don't care. I like them just like I like old MACS and GRIDS. They work extremely well, are low maintenance, and I've owned them for YEARS, and get pleasure from USING them.

So I guess we're back to the chicken or the egg thing or whatever it is or was that started this post.

BENEFITS of VoIP ? - is the ability to glue corporate and organizational communications effectively to their customers and customers' customers in an effective manner.

 

[ccmuser]

GoTellBigDaddy;
I will admit that once you elaborated on your statements I CAN agree with you on certain issues under specific cicumstances.

The real problem I had is these are deployment specific. Almost every argument you named can be reversed and argued as a PRO VOIP or anti PBX depending on the deployment.

Actually cisco SCCP can be used by anyone to create endpoints. You have also have the option to use Jave Cti embedding or traditioonal H.323. Since you used cisco in your argument I figured I would adress that specific manufactuer. You actually have choices in phones for your cisco PBX. Third party phones are actually becoming a large market right now due to price issues on cisco's phone's. and BTW The voice packets are not encrypted.

I totally agree bus model is what it is all about. Buy the right solution for your needs.

As far as cost. I am a firm believer that COST savings are real for VOIP. Again I agree not in every instance. But on the flip side. You hardly ever see a large scale traditional deployment cheaper then voip.

There are no experts? Are there experts that no everything in the traditional market? If it were so simple there would be alot less consulting companies running around. This argument plays to both sides.

As for hiring and training.. Again I think this applies to both sides. There are plenty( well maybe not plenty); but there are trained articulate VOIP people out there. ESP if you find the consulting firm to augement your staff.

I don't see how you can not look at SIP as positive. When has something like that ever happened in the TRADITIONAL market. True open vendor support. Still a little far away for the enterprise(and may actually never find traction in that space). But is almost there and is being used in the provider market.

I guess overall I just think your original presentation was flawed. I think we both agree that many of the "GAPS" you mentioned are actually there.

In fact I think everyone of those GAPS in many istall are the DRIVING force to purchase. I have no doubt you understand the telephony market by your dialog, but listing those line items as a weakness ONLY of VOIP was a little misleading.

I would agree if you stated" Warning make sure you really look into all of these items before purchase".

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

WARNING - WARNING - WARNING

These are the opinions of the author !

The voice packets are not encrypted and you are correct. The Protocols that are used by IP-PBX manufacturers are PROPRIETARY and there is a process to "decrypt" them, although not in the way that we normally view encryption/decryption. Can they be emulated ? How ?

Examples:

3Com: NBX H3

Cisco: Skinny CLient Control Protocol (SCCP)

Nortel: UniStim

Mitel: MiNet

Again- back to the posters questions at hand. The arguments I make are to shed light upon the decision making process. VoIP and IP Telephony is growing, improving, changing. TRADITIONAL TELEPHONY is a MARKET MATURE industry, and this is what a lot of the fuss is all about. There are bleeding edge to trailing edge adopters of this and any other technology. Some businesses CANNOT affort to jump on the bandwagon and do appear to move slowly- as they should since their business models dictate. VoIP and IP Telephony again- are solutions not THE SOLUTION. There is no "THE SOLUTION."

SIP has potential and it at the same time offers a complexity that will affect the core of telephony as will IP/IP-PBX methods. What many fail to realize is the degree to support that any can offer to a complex telecommunications infrastructure.

My arguments about Experts are not about traditional voice - in general and ringing true to life- we are all learning everyday. The IP-Telephony mindset can't be and certainly isn't Market or Product Mature. But you're a techy and I'm not hitting the nerve as desired.

My other points as you have avoided also remain.

I don't dislike or disdain IP, IP-Telephony, SIP or other technology. What I do with a passion DO NOT LIKE is the over dependence that users/customers fall into for technologies and they end up getting burned. IF it weren't so, you wouldn't have a job. I read with great interest from an industry leader when he said "Don't let the technology seduce you." Yes- folks need to take this to heart. Realistic expectations need to be set.

Think I mentioned before: BENEFITS. The BENEFITS followed GAPS and in summary.

Traditional Voice is already a proven technology although it will change as will the methods. So- flip flop back to IP Telephony and NO, it is not proven and there ARE NO EXPERTS isn't at all misleading. SOBER the customers instead of filling them with GREAT EXPECTATIONS because this is WHY IP-Telephony has failed in the very recent past and why it will continue to fail for some businesses.

Large Enterprise is more likely to have the resources to manage these depolyments unlike many S-M Enterprises. Yes, I know about Bank of America, Boeing, and FORD and their CISCO deployments underway.

Just don't forget about Merrill Lynch and their business model.

If there misleading statements I've made- I'd encourage you and others to point them out. I am pointing out the PROS and CONS of each and no, I'm not taking sides since there are none for me to take. There are no direct benefits or means to make a sale to be gained by me or by my posts here.

Consultative selling is often NOT engaged between vendor and buyer. Can a vendor reveal every possible concern to a prospective customer ? NO. Can a customer ask every possbile question to cover his/her butt ? NO. But both sides are obliged to "DISCOVER" the business undertaking. It takes greater effort when it comes to IP-telephony. That will change in time and not by self declarations that "We are experts."

Lastly- you've mentioned before about people and their jobs. You need to realize that PEOPLE including YOU and any other person breathing has a natural tendency to RESIST C-H-A-N-G-E. At least all the EXPERTS tell me that. It's not just about losing jobs since yours is always in jeopardy (Consultant). The telecom industry is in a move that has since 1987 been in a declining TREND. The decline is downward and to consider that 2+ million jobs in the telecom industry have been lost in less than 5 years and the decline will likely continue without an equal "replacement" of jobs. Outsourcing is another issue but I am getting way off task and subject direct to the original questions. Anyway- these are Social Costs of our new technologies. They are often hidden.

Training isn't THE SOLUTION either. This process of CHANGE that not just you or I are seeing, takes time- people time not machine time.

One last thing- chicken and egg thing: datacom and IT folks often think that they are not telecom as do many telecom folks think they are NOT datacom. There's some differences but really- think about it.

 

[GoTellBigDaddy]

One More BENEFIT

Voice Packets are scrambled (not encrypted) in IP-PBXs.

 

[ccmuser]

Now what is funny about this whole discussion is that his original question was this

If you had to summarize the benefits and pitfalls of VOIP what would they be? And is VOIP much more attractive/compelling to organizations that have multiple sites compared to an organization that only has one site.

Your insights would be much appreciated.

He did ask about VOIP, not IP Telephony. You arguments apply mostly to IP telephony Deployments. Not really to Pure VOIP environments. And after all ; as you pointed out you are only trying to answer his initial post right?

Odd all the anti IP people assumed the methodologies he is using to VOICE enable his IP network.

Are you really telling me that VOIP is not a PROVEN technology. Have you told that to Qwest,IDT,bellsouth,verizon. How about Cable companies down south. Or att&t rolling out it’s packet cable inititive last year. Just to put this into perspective Qwest estimates they save over 25 million a month due to the ability to handle calls “ON NET”. Now I am not trying to use this figure as a comparative savings statement. But the USE of IP as a medium for transporting voice has been a mature technology for quite a long time. My current project has been IP or VO/xxx way before we decided to implement IP Telephony. We don’t save 25 mill a month. But we do aggressively use toll bypass AND no longer implement ANY leased TIE or PTP voice lines. We have been VOICE OVER XXXX for over ten years. Over the past 8 years we have choose IP for the flexibility to engineer bandwidth it has afforded us. And BTW….yes WE DO SAVE MONEY.

Such a high percentage of long distance calls you make now is traversing a VOIP leg at some point. Have you noticed a DROP in your long distance call quality in the past 10 years. NO it is has actually improved.

the new world of telcom is hear, aggressively beating at our doors. I guess some people are just scared to let him in.

Now if we want to look at IP Telephony.
I still look at your initial 7 “gaps”. I read them again a few times. 5 of these GAPS, Advanced features, TRUE COST of OWNERSHIP, CONVERGENCE, MANAGEABILITY, STANDARDS can and are commonly argued as ADVANTAGES to IP TELEPHONY. I don’t think these areas are an Across the board advantage to traditional telephony.

And then you attribute a human characteristic “mentality” to an INANIMATE object.


There is a difference between a PROPRIETARY protocol and one that is closed source. SCCP and unisim are available for vendors to implement. I don’t know about 3com and MITEL. There are plenty of 3rd party Ip SCCP phones on the market that illustrate just this point. And the end user actually has choice, from a quality and feature perspective. Hmm Do we have that in the traditional voice market?

Is sip really any more complicated that SS7? Kinda odd considering they perform roughly the same functions. SIP complicates voice networks but SS7 simplifies them? I have to admit again I don’t understand. You need signaling and control if you are in IP or trad voice. AND Sip is and will be hidden from the end user in SIP based PBX’s. So this is like arguing that Fuel complicates your CAR. But no matter what fuel you choose, You can’t really get anywhere without it.


Oh BTW.. It’s so obvious the chicken came before the egg.