EC500 vs Remote Call Coverge

[phonequestion]

Can anyone please tell me what criteria you use to decide to give a user EC500 vs Remote Call Coverge?

 

[ResetSystem4]

well, i basically think these two features have different intentions.
for what application do you want to use them?

RS4

 

[mattinbr]

At my office I prefer EC500 especially for myself. I am usually running all over the building doing moves, adds and changes, thus am away from my desk phone. With EC500 it actually does a bridged appearance which will allow me to answer my cell phone and then once I get back to my desk, I can transfer the call to my desk phone without dropping the call. I like the ease of turning it on and off. There are 2 ways. 1. press send calls or 2. by using the feature access codes. I'm not sure if this helps.

 

[nohuhu]

well, they do have different goals and different ways to be used. remote coverage is just an extension to coverage path mechanism, it allows you to send calls outward without any chance to control them later. ec500 is extension-to-cellular indeed, it maps an extension of xmobile type to cellular (or any other) phone and it gives you some control over this. first of all, system sees this cellular as an ordinary extension, just remote one. you can call this extension by its internal number; you can call from this cellular and it will appear as you calling from internal extension; you can set up permissions with cor and cos; you can bridge it and even set a coverage path for this ec500 extension. a remote one. it's hard to explain in more detail here, maybe you should check system description?

 

[PBXinfo]

EC500 is licenced also. something to consider. 1 licence per button you want to bridge, so all of our telephone require 2 licences.

 

[BoricuaBlanco]

Is EC550 the only solution to bridge an extension between two networked systems?