What are IT Geeks doin in the telcom business 25

[firefoxfire]

I am wondering what everyones experience is with these IT geeks that think they belong in the telcom business simply because they can plug an IP or VOIP telephone set into a router.

I keep hearing complaints from people all over the place that they are promised the world from these guys and they get nothing but excuses from lost and poor connections to system and networks that are continually off line.

I hear that the features and services are never correctly configured and that training is very poor or the customer is just given a manual or directed to a web site for help.

These guys are just not telephone people and have no idea how proper cable management works let alone the proper needs of the customers.

They introduce and install equipment that is overwhelming to the customers and their employees with to many features and complicated menus to work with etc.. They are trying to force a telephone to do the work of a computer or Laptop.

And the attitude I get from these guys is usually paranoid, unreliable and uncooperative to say the least.

What is your experience with these guys getting into the telcom business?

Thanks

 

[jplissonneau]

Not sure I would trust this guy for a copier either

At home I have a totally obsolete IBM PII-300 desktop built maybe 13 years ago with a hard drive just a bit younger. Does IP PBX, print server, router, it still manages weeks of uptime (no UPS) and I don't remember ever seeing it crashing. Close to decommissioning because it's a bit noisy compared to less old boxes. And slow.

I don't like these folks giving a bad name to VoIP setups though, it just spreads the FUD further.


--
A(PS|CI)S-SMEC
IT consultant
Canada / Quebec City area

 

[Dexman]

these PBX were not connected to public data networks with new security issues discovered everyday.....

That's why it is not uncommon for technicians who work with key & PBXs to say that voice systems should be separate from data systems. Minimal security issues and these systems will run without needing a parade of patches to counter the ever growing list of threats that are a genuine threat to IP-based communication.

With our current office arrangement, if a server goes down for whatever reason, we have a tried & true key system to turn to. How the servers that provide service for these phones are configured, is well beyond anything those of us in our office would be getting involved in.

Modern key & PBX systems make use of ICs.....unlike the old Western Electric 1A2s that used discrete components and could withstand environmental conditions that would croak any modern key system, PBX, server & router.

I "FEATURE 00

 

[Dexman]

The only exception that I'm aware of to the claim that TDM systems are, for the most part, bullet-proof is the debacle Avaya created with the R7 version of the Partner ACS processor. The software was buggy and Avaya had to release patch after patch after patch (something unheard of for TDM systems) to get the processor to work properly .

I "FEATURE 00

 

[mattKnight]

One thing that has not been mentioned;
Cost.

What is the most expensive recurring cost for a phone system; People to manage it.

If you can converge the voice team in to the IT teams - less people = less money.



Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

 

[nessman]

> If you can converge the voice team in to the IT teams - less people = less money.

Not necessarily. Depends on the size of your company, the type of PBX you're running and what skillsets exist within IT. From an organizational point of view it makes sense to bring voice and IT together - especially if you're doing VoIP, but finding someone who can do both, and well, can be difficult. Sometimes it's more economical to have a vendor do all the work. Sometimes it's more economical to have a dedicated voice team. It all depends.

 

[jplissonneau]

It's definitely not a matter of less people. In the places I know there is next to nobody having "the phones" in charge, it's almost always completely outsourced even in large shops (these shops outsource IT hardware maintenance and help desk support as well).

But there is a matter of cost and complexity. TDM systems need their own cables, and more often than not they won't share the same wall plates and won't end up in the same room, and if they do anyway they will be on a BIX rather than a patch panel.

Now if you make voice share the same path as data, instead of having 2 problems when moving desks around you only have 1, and bosses like that.


--
A(PS|CI)S-SMEC
IT consultant
Canada / Quebec City area

 

[nessman]

My current duties have me assigned to a large customer - ~3,000 phones including a large call center spread out over 15 sites within a 75 mile radius. *I* am the outsourced guy. There's some limited internal customer support (i.e., the call center IVR's and Symposium are largely the responsibility of the customer), but as far as the PBX's are concerned - a mix of aging Meridian and Norstar, I'm it.

Now keep in mind, I'm bundled with a maintenance contract - so when things break, I do have resources I can call upon (parts, people smarter than me, etc...) but I'm the day to day guy.

There's pros and cons to TDM with it's own wiring infrastructure and VoIP. Some mission-critical phone systems must be separate from the data networks - and TDM fits that bill nicely. I've seen call centers lose their data networks, but they're still able to handle calls (albeit to apologize to most callers that the computer's down). Can't do that when your VoIP goes down with the network - and customers don't like hearing recordings about a down mainframe.

 

[jplissonneau]

1 guy for 3000 phones, that's probably a ten-to-1 ration compared to IT folks. Not where I would look for savings.

Mission-critical data centers can't work without their computers either, so the correct way to proceed there is first to up the reliability of the data network to enough nines after 99. and only then consider using it for voice. If you think your data network can't match the reliability of your TDM system, you have a problem with your data network (and then you are right to stay on the safe, proven, predictable TDM stuff for the moment).

One more thing about redundancy and probabilities. Say, you need your phone _AND_ your computer to work, and both the TDM PBX and the data network get 99.99% service availability in average to make things simple (TDM is better than that, and data should be too). The probability that one _AND_ the other are available simultaneously at any given time is .99980001. That is, your average yearly downtime is 1h45.

If you only depend on the data network with the same availability, you only get 53 minutes of yearly downtime. Better.

Now. If, instead of a TDM socket and a data socket, you got two data sockets with 2 totally separated redundant networks behind them run by different people to avoid the same errors being done at the same time on both networks, and then connected your computer to both of them, one through the IP phone the other directly, and had a backup softphone on the computer, then now you need both networks to go down simultaneously to prevent you from working. This gives (in theory at least) a third of a second of yearly average downtime with the example above. Totally absolutely better.

Think about it (and also, "in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice").

One last thing about PBX hardware, be it a server with a PBX OS or a TDM chassis. One of the reason why I think people overestimate the reliability of TDM systems is that they don't go down often, but when they do because some hardware failed, that's for hours (as I have seen it happen anyway): get the telco guy there, diagnose, replace, hoping he has the required parts with him or in stock nearby, and eventually reprogram/test. OTOH IT guys often keep spare servers and switches on site, and are on site themselves. When hardware breaks, they first restore the service on a spare box (which can be automatic and instant if the service ran in a replicated VM) and only then attempt to repair the failed one.

Just to say that I don't think there any reason to keep voice and data networks separated other than "voice folks don't trust data guys".


--
A(PS|CI)S-SMEC
IT consultant
Canada / Quebec City area

 

[Oldtimephoneguy]

Wow, I was off a few days and there's been allot of activity here. I would like to say that Telecom goes way back in my family's history. In fact my great-great Grandfather was Alexander Graham Bellski. Of course you know he was the first telephone Pole.

Frank. City of Cape Coral, Florida

 

[Sympology]

What is the most expensive recurring cost for a phone system; People to manage it.

Two people 3500+, down from 3 when we had Meridians all over the place.





Robert Wilensky:
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

http://alvechurchlounge.org.uk

 

[Sympology]

BTW today, 2 ISDN's failed at a remote site, took site offline.
Redirected (frantically) non geo to local gateway > SIP to server.
Up and running while ISDN fixed (outbound already had auto failover to SIP)
Only reason not fully SIP is that we are waiting for a 2nd IP line to go in + not enough bandwidth.

Robert Wilensky:
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

http://alvechurchlounge.org.uk

 

[Dexman]

Any Telecom outfit worth its weight will have a supply of spare stock on-hand. It's no different than an IT outfit keeping a supply of hard drives, mother boards, other hardware and software for the servers & routers they support. Here in the US, TDM wiring is commonly terminated on 66 blocks, 110 blocks or, in some cases, BIX. Analog & digital TDM phones will work quite nicely with CAT3 cable. No need to use 5E, 6, 6E or 6A.

While computers do play an ever increasing role in daily commerce the loss of telephone service is far worse than the loss of data services. How professional does it look if your customers cannot reach you because a server problem takes down voice services? If a computer network fails, information can still be taken down the old fashioned way....by hand.... and entered into a system once the data network has been restored.

IP does have a place in communications. But is it only 1 out of many tools available. The problem is that it is not being marketed that way and a lot of IT professionals are quite happy with that.

Small outfits that have very basic phone & data needs are being sold IP even if their needs don't dictate it. Fax machines and alarm panels do not play nicely with IP. Lose power with IP....you're sunk. Lose power with POTs lines....pull out some SLTs and you're good to go.

911 services over IP? No thanks.

I "FEATURE 00

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

The Box on the wall's day is coming to an end.......

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[phoneguy610]

^ as long as IT geeks keep butchering installs ... the pbx will always have its place.

 

[hairlessupportmonkey]

well, Im an IT geek and a qualified IPO engineer......

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[phoneguy610]

then you are one in one thousand

and, i still would like to see if your install standards are that of a telecom engineers

 

[SYQUEST]

HSM,

I have seen IPO boxes on the wall!! So they are not going away... Not all boxes get mounted on or in racks...

....JIM....

 

[jplissonneau]

Even I (of the "IT geek" pack) install TDM IPO boxes and BIX stuff on plywood in basements (and routers, media gateways, ethernet switches, UPS...). Actually I totally dislike stuff that is not wall-mountable, especially stuff that is neither wall-mountable nor rack-mountable. Shelves are evil.

The cabling guys I work with won't install anything below cat5e even for telephony (they use Z cable for security / intercom stuff though, maybe smaller residential jobs as well). We sometimes have arguments on how stuff should be terminated (bix? patch panel? a mix of both? which colors?) but in almost all significantly sized recent projects the engineering requirements were 8p8c 568A sockets, 19" patch panels, cat5e or cat6 cabling. Eventually with color and/or layout requirements to differentiate voice and data.

About what's essential for a business. When I end up talking to someone because e-mails got unanswered and they still can't answer questions, take orders or ship stuff today because their computer system is down, it looks far more unprofessional to me than not being reachable through phone. We got past the point where data networks are more critical than phone networks for most organizations. In many places people would be sent home when the data network is down for the rest of the day. Outside call centers, I don't know places that would stop working just because the phone system is down.

Fax machines. Slowly going away, as the Telex did, as analog TV broadcast does, and as analog trunks will do (as soon as possible please). Most people around me accept (and expect) e-mails with attachments, or plain old snail mail.

Credit/debit card machines. Now over IP, faster, more reliable, no more busy lines, and they have POTS backup anyway.

Alarm panels can be equipped to send messages through IP connections (with backups on either a land line or through a cellular network). Instead of a 20-sec-or-so process (seize line, dial number, wait tone, send tones) the transmission is instant, and the link to the panel can be monitored almost continuously. With just a regular land line, the remote supervision knows that the link went down only after it's restored and the panel sends a trouble alarm.

After all, poles and copper wires existed before the telephone. They were installed to transmit data (that was the telegraph), and then someone found a way to abuse that technology to send voice over it. Sounds familiar?


--
A(PS|CI)S-SMEC
IT consultant
Canada / Quebec City area

 

[Dexman]

To me, losing phone service is worse than losing computer, so it simply depends on the perspective of the individual. People accept the fact that computer networks are susceptible to hacks, viruses & crashes.....and they are. No computer network is impervious to attacks or crashes.

It should not be that way with voice services.

There is still tons of analog equipment out there and it is not going away any time soon. IP service will not be able to support it. TDM/analog will be around for a long time to come. It will continue to decline as people become more accepting of voice service that can & does fall below 4 or 5 9's in reliability.

I "FEATURE 00

 

[jplissonneau]

It's not the network that is susceptible to the hack/virus/crashes people notice, it's computers. A correctly designed and operated data network remains up 24/7 for years without disruptions, has a reliability that is comparable to TDM systems, and allows more fail-over options than TDM setups.

So I would rather say "it should not be that way with data networks". Too many managers still fail to realize that having not-so-competent folks in charge of their networks resulting in not-so-available service carries a huge hidden cost, certainly orders of magnitude higher than having experienced consultants at $XXX/hour helping them to avoid problems happening in the first place.

IP ATAs can be (and are often) used to connect analog data equipment. They requires G.711, enough initial buffering (that increases latency) and QoS end-to-end to work reliably though.

As far as I am concerned one of the major remaining irritants with IP endpoints is that they take ages to boot. Seriously, manufacturers, please do something about that. These are embedded systems, they could and should be up and running in less than 5 seconds when powered again.

Actually TDM systems are a bit like computer systems that used a central computer and "dumb" terminals. They were reliable and did not require a lot of maintenance, there are still some of them around but they are going extinct because by design they can't offer features that people expect from modern computers, and anyway even on these systems people are replacing terminals by computers because actual terminals are more expensive.


--
A(PS|CI)S-SMEC
IT consultant
Canada / Quebec City area