RE: Office IP phone system

["White, Peter" <peter.white@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The definition of UC varies depending on who you talk to, but for us
it's the integration of conferencing, voice, IM, VM, video and presence
status.  And yes, it does add to the cost, mostly in licensing, and a bit
of hardware....for this project, about 30% of the cost is pure UC-related -
a working number is something around $900-1000 per head for a full UC
deployment.

Somebody mentioned Swyx...that's not a bad solution.  When I deployed VoIP
for our UK company (Cisco won that deal in the end), Swyx was the #2
option...however, unless it's changed in the past couple of years, it's
100% Windows server based, and that gets 'traditional' telecoms folks very
agitated...not on a Microsoft rant, but more because it doesn't have the
legacy failover capability that all of the traditional vendors can provide.
 As long as I have connectivity to the outside world here, then I'll always
have dialtone, no matter what the state of the various servers are (in
theory...).

You need to think about if you want SIP trunking, or to stick with PSTN
outside of your office (and VPN-connected workers).  PSTN is the safer
choice, SIP is becoming more reliable, but it's a commodity, and your
experience will vary depending on who the ultimate end provider is.

The FMC (fixed-mobile convergence) feature, where you can 'seamlessly'
switch from a mobile phone to desk, and back again, is still very flaky. 
Each vendor does it in a different way, but I've yet to see a real-life
demo of it actually working perfectly.  The system I have here allows
hand-off to any other device, which is good enough for most of my users. 
Beyond that, you need to have an app on the phone, which means you need to
have specific phones...even the iPhone isn't ideal, at least not until
multi-tasking is enabled.

For the auto-receptionist, you're talking about auto-attendant capability,
where a caller can enter the extension number, route a call etc...most
systems have this feature out of the box.  If you want it to know if an end
user is in a certain presence state (aside from off-hook), then you're
getting into UC territory.  Outlook integration is normally done via LDAP,
not a big deal, as long as your GAL is up to date.

There's so many features out there, it's difficult to know what you really
need.  If you're doing away with VM, then consider a ONS (One number
service), so that the system takes care of finding you, regardless of your
actual location.  The vendors will tell you that with ONS, you'll never get
any VMs.  I'll tell you that's BS, but, it is a good feature, and means you
never have to give out mobile numbers.  Fax integration still seems
popular.

In terms of RoI, and therefore the initial cost justification, our savings
are coming from bring conferencing in-house, bringing web-collaboration
(WebEx etc) in house, and reduced maintenance.  All the other benefits do
not have hard-cast savings.

I can ramble endlessly about this, probably best to take it off-list
though, most people find it kinda boring :-)

HTH, Pete.


-----Original Message-----
From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ho Yin
Ng
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 5:22 PM
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Office IP phone system

Peter

Good to hear from  you again!

I assume UC - which I take is unified communication - i.e. changing voice
to
sms etc? is more expensive than simple VOIP.

If this is the case I just need simple VOIP. I don't have the need for UC
and my budget is fairly limited.

Most of my employees are office based. There are a couple that work on
sites
but not many. Others like myself are on the mobile - so office transfer to
mobile is useful.

Currently I am on Siemens, but on an old inherited system. My office has
out
grown this and we can nolonger expand - hence why I am looking to
completely
change and get something better with a lot more flexibility.

I only need the simple features:

- integration into the outlook contacts database
- reception computer operated system - can tell if user is away, busy, dnd
etc
- voip to any ip destination

That I think is it. I don't particularly want voicemail and I don't really
know what other functions I would really need! My needs don't exactly set
the world on fire either!

Any advice gratefully accepted. So far I have some guys try and flog me an
NEC VOIP system, then BT try and flog me a Mitel one ....

Thanks

Ho-Yin


On 19 April 2010 18:22, White, Peter <peter.white@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> NOT Siemens Openscape. I'm 6 months into that nightmare with them. We
have
> a Mitel solution in Canada, it's OK, but as with the Avaya and Cisco
> solutions, will never set the world on fire. Mitel were also the most
> expensive (for a 350 user UC solution, not just VoIP). If I were
starting
> again (and we tried, but the legal costs of pulling out of the current
> contract were prohibitive), I'd have Shoretel and a Microsoft/Cisco
solution
> at the top of my list. The former doesn't have so much of a presence
in
> Europe yet, but they have a very clean solution, which is
appliance-based.
> Microsoft have no legacy experience, so I would never trust them
completely
> on voice, but coupled with Cisco (or others) they have a pretty good
UC
> solution. More money though, due to the licensing model.
>
> Are you looking at VoIP or UC?
>
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ho Yin
Ng
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:21 AM
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [ukha_d] Office IP phone system
>
>
> I am looking to upgrade my office phone system to an IP based phone
system.
>
> Has anyone got any recommendations of types or installer? Someone has
> already suggested Mitel.
>
> Or does anyone here specialise in them and would like to come in for a
> chat? I am based on Central London.
>
> Looking for a system which can handle around 60 people as a starter.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ho-Yin
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------