Rik,
I agree that I'm suffering from implementation hassles. That was (partly) my
point, though - to claim equivalence, VoIP should reproduce PBX
implementation.
But out in the corporate real-world, VoIP can't claim equivalence if it
needs three times the PBX staff for three times the time, plus constant care
and feeding forever. Set-and-forget is the PBX rule.
>> OTOH, the VoIP system has needed an NT+SQL Server expert, a telephony
>> expert, a router expert, and some weeks of installation, implementation,
>> tuning, complaining, promises, and "it will get better when we upgrade
the
>> routers".
>
>Again, implementation. Many PBX vendors are incorporating VoIP into
>their products and most, if not all, of this detail is hidden in
>exactly the same way their inter-PBX trunking protocols are hidden -
>fairly open, but most people don't have to worry about it. Telco
>vendors are generally better at doing this than IT vendors ;-)
Fair comment. Still, features once on a special-purpose lump of hardware -
which admittedly IT people hate because it's not "open" - are migrating
piecemeal to a generic server, and my phone doesn't have alt-ctrl-del keys.
That's part of the technology's "paradigm shift" after all: that VoIP moves
telephony into the world of openness (and General Protection Faults at
address 00xx003F!). Upside, anyone can make software for VoIP. Downside,
anyone can make software for VoIP.
[BTW: This refers not to the home user making an Internet call, but to the
"hey, ditch the PBX and get IP phones instead" pitch.]
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Rik Harris [mailto:Rik.Harris@fulcrum.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2001 16:50
To: Chirgwin, Richard; Link List
Subject: Re: [LINK] VoIP not dead
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 12:11:59PM +1000, Chirgwin, Richard wrote:
> Glen,
>
> I am now a user of VoIP - against my will, it was a corporate
> decision...it's not dead but it damn well should be. Shot and buried at
> midnight in an umarked grave is my vote.
... some not very good experiences deleted ...
This all sounds like a criticism of an implementation, not of the
technology. Of course, many of the cost justifications for VoIP
assume a cheap implementation where that usually needs the words "and
nasty" appended.
We too have tried VoIP and found it unsuitable *for us*. Our
cost/benefit analysis directed us to a more traditional PBX rather than
persuing VoIP further. But I'm not going to bit-bucket the entire
technology just because the cost/benefit to do VoIP properly doesn't yet
work for a company in our current circumstances.
> One of the IT industry's worst habits is to pitch emerging technologies on
> the basis of "buy now, we'll make it work sometime".
I agree with you on this point. IT vendor hype does sometimes
outstrip reality.
> OTOH, the VoIP system has needed an NT+SQL Server expert, a telephony
> expert, a router expert, and some weeks of installation, implementation,
> tuning, complaining, promises, and "it will get better when we upgrade the
> routers".
Again, implementation. Many PBX vendors are incorporating VoIP into
their products and most, if not all, of this detail is hidden in
exactly the same way their inter-PBX trunking protocols are hidden -
fairly open, but most people don't have to worry about it. Telco
vendors are generally better at doing this than IT vendors ;-)
rik.
--
~ Specialists in IT Infrastructure ~
* Managed Services * Consulting * Product Supply & Support *
Rik Harris The Fulcrum Group of Companies
Chief Technology Officer Level 8, 628 Bourke Street
ph: +61-3-8601-6100 Melbourne VIC 3000
fx: +61-3-8601-6199 Australia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:02 EST