Best PBX Software?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It's one thing to use a stand alone VOIP phone with a direct connected SIP trunk, but I don't know any corporations that operate their phone systems that way.
So don't configure that for use. It's not a negative, it's just an extra feature.
Your phone talks to the PBX over a standard SIP trunk.
Right. I thought that he was talking about the DND on the Phone feature.
I was - I am saying I want the phone to be completely dumb - all functions should be passed along to the PBX - which I was definitely working toward.
I had managed to disable most of the default configurations. You're right it's not a negative, just a feature I don't need.
You'd be amazing how many customers, in the same vein, demand that the phone do multiway calling and refuse to let the PBX do it.
This was a big feature of the Yealink phones that I installed that was required. They worked great at doing this but people complained that when they wanted to do more then 3 people on a call they couldn't just add them in.... I setup conference lines just for that instance.
What advantage do you get conferencing through the endpoint over conferencing through the PBX?
Is it like my DND example, doing it through the PBX is not as simple as just hitting line two, then conference/bridge?
Pretty much this. It was a feature our legacy phones had that users wanted. They wanted it to be near instantaneous and didn't want to have to call someone and transfer them to a conference line.
This is how any Yealink phone works by default with any Asterisk PBX
- I am on a call
- I want to conference on someone else
- I push the conference button
- I dial the ext of the person I wish to add
a. via button or dial - I wait for them to answer
- i push conference again and we have a conference call
Right, that's why I mentioned it as a feature and one of the reasons we went to Yealink.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It's one thing to use a stand alone VOIP phone with a direct connected SIP trunk, but I don't know any corporations that operate their phone systems that way.
So don't configure that for use. It's not a negative, it's just an extra feature.
Your phone talks to the PBX over a standard SIP trunk.
Right. I thought that he was talking about the DND on the Phone feature.
I was - I am saying I want the phone to be completely dumb - all functions should be passed along to the PBX - which I was definitely working toward.
I had managed to disable most of the default configurations. You're right it's not a negative, just a feature I don't need.
You'd be amazing how many customers, in the same vein, demand that the phone do multiway calling and refuse to let the PBX do it.
This was a big feature of the Yealink phones that I installed that was required. They worked great at doing this but people complained that when they wanted to do more then 3 people on a call they couldn't just add them in.... I setup conference lines just for that instance.
What advantage do you get conferencing through the endpoint over conferencing through the PBX?
Is it like my DND example, doing it through the PBX is not as simple as just hitting line two, then conference/bridge?
Pretty much this. It was a feature our legacy phones had that users wanted. They wanted it to be near instantaneous and didn't want to have to call someone and transfer them to a conference line.
This is how any Yealink phone works by default with any Asterisk PBX
- I am on a call
- I want to conference on someone else
- I push the conference button
- I dial the ext of the person I wish to add
a. via button or dial - I wait for them to answer
- i push conference again and we have a conference call
Sure, this works for calls up to three total - but if you need to bring in 4 people, you can't do this.
-
@Dashrender said:
You mean for more than 2 or 3 extra callers, right? I thought Yeahlink phones with FreePBX could conference up to three (the phone who's phone it was and two others) just like legacy phone systems. When you wanted to have three or more other parties, you had to use a conference.
This was on my problem list, but not a show stopper since it didn't happen that frequently.
Again - why can't asterisk based systems do this out of the box like legacy systems? This seems like such a HUGE miss.Because I have used zero legacy systems that let you conference more than 3 people at once. Users always get around it by joining in multiple conference calls together from various extensions.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It's one thing to use a stand alone VOIP phone with a direct connected SIP trunk, but I don't know any corporations that operate their phone systems that way.
So don't configure that for use. It's not a negative, it's just an extra feature.
Your phone talks to the PBX over a standard SIP trunk.
Right. I thought that he was talking about the DND on the Phone feature.
I was - I am saying I want the phone to be completely dumb - all functions should be passed along to the PBX - which I was definitely working toward.
I had managed to disable most of the default configurations. You're right it's not a negative, just a feature I don't need.
You'd be amazing how many customers, in the same vein, demand that the phone do multiway calling and refuse to let the PBX do it.
This was a big feature of the Yealink phones that I installed that was required. They worked great at doing this but people complained that when they wanted to do more then 3 people on a call they couldn't just add them in.... I setup conference lines just for that instance.
What advantage do you get conferencing through the endpoint over conferencing through the PBX?
Is it like my DND example, doing it through the PBX is not as simple as just hitting line two, then conference/bridge?
Pretty much this. It was a feature our legacy phones had that users wanted. They wanted it to be near instantaneous and didn't want to have to call someone and transfer them to a conference line.
This is how any Yealink phone works by default with any Asterisk PBX
- I am on a call
- I want to conference on someone else
- I push the conference button
- I dial the ext of the person I wish to add
a. via button or dial - I wait for them to answer
- i push conference again and we have a conference call
Sure, this works for calls up to three total - but if you need to bring in 4 people, you can't do this.
You're legacy system does this? I've only ever seen 3-way calling in a feature list not instant conferences. FreePBX does instant/on-demand conferences as well you just have to setup the extension.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
You mean for more than 2 or 3 extra callers, right? I thought Yeahlink phones with FreePBX could conference up to three (the phone who's phone it was and two others) just like legacy phone systems. When you wanted to have three or more other parties, you had to use a conference.
This was on my problem list, but not a show stopper since it didn't happen that frequently.
Again - why can't asterisk based systems do this out of the box like legacy systems? This seems like such a HUGE miss.Because I have used zero legacy systems that let you conference more than 3 people at once. Users always get around it by joining in multiple conference calls together form various extensions.
This assumes you have multiple people inside the company being involved.
What if the owner wants to conference with 4 other people that are all outside of the company? Conference bridge is required, or the SIP trunk has to be terminated directly on the phone, then that phone can do a conference locally.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Because I have used zero legacy systems that let you conference more than 3 people at once. Users always get around it by joining in multiple conference calls together from various extensions.
Our Mitel system allows us to conference 4 additional besides the one who's phone it is. a total of 5 people.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Because I have used zero legacy systems that let you conference more than 3 people at once. Users always get around it by joining in multiple conference calls together from various extensions.
Our Mitel system allows us to conference 4 additional besides the one who's phone it is. a total of 5 people.
So one more than what I said I have experienced with legacy systems.
Either way, yes conference bridges are the correct solution and always should have been, but it was an add on feature that legacy PBX providers charged outrageous prices to get.
So it sounds like Mitel tweaked their PBX to alleviate the issue to some degree instead of just opening up conference bridges.
With Asterisk, you can have a completely open conference bridge no need to dial special codes or require name announcements. So if you want external people on it just transfer them into it and then call in yourself.
-
I guess I misread your 3 to mean 3 including the caller in your office.
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Why offer less than what anyone else offers?
Often I'll agree with a specific work flow change - but this is one place where I just see the technology forcing us to something someone has decided to dictate as the "Proper Way." But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Oh and Mitel didn't charge us extra for the ability to conference 4 or 5 people using the endpoint, that's just part of the base package.
-
@Dashrender said:
I guess I misread your 3 to mean 3 including the caller in your office.
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Why offer less than what anyone else offers?
Often I'll agree with a specific work flow change - but this is one place where I just see the technology forcing us to something someone has decided to dictate as the "Proper Way." But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Oh and Mitel didn't charge us extra for the ability to conference 4 or 5 people using the endpoint, that's just part of the base package.
How much do they charge for conference bridges?
-
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
-
@Dashrender said:
But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Is it? Or is it to do things the best way possible? Why enable things that are less than ideal if you can give them ideal instead?
I'm not stating an opinion, just offering an alternative way to look at it. Remember most vendors have been burned giving people "what they want", it is generally wiser to give them "the right solution."
-
@Dashrender said:
Oh and Mitel didn't charge us extra for the ability to conference 4 or 5 people using the endpoint, that's just part of the base package.
The nice thing about FreePBX or Elastix or whatever... unlimited conference bridges with unlimited callers into each.
At NTG, everyone gets their own private conference bridge plus we have the main ones that are accessible directly from the main IVR. So much more flexible.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
I guess I misread your 3 to mean 3 including the caller in your office.
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Why offer less than what anyone else offers?
Often I'll agree with a specific work flow change - but this is one place where I just see the technology forcing us to something someone has decided to dictate as the "Proper Way." But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Oh and Mitel didn't charge us extra for the ability to conference 4 or 5 people using the endpoint, that's just part of the base package.
How much do they charge for conference bridges?
I'm pretty sure the system came with at least two built in. It's not a function that we use often, if at all. The ability for an endpoint to conference 4 additional people has almost always been more than enough for our needs.
-
@Dashrender said:
I guess I misread your 3 to mean 3 including the caller in your office.
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Why offer less than what anyone else offers?
Often I'll agree with a specific work flow change - but this is one place where I just see the technology forcing us to something someone has decided to dictate as the "Proper Way." But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Oh and Mitel didn't charge us extra for the ability to conference 4 or 5 people using the endpoint, that's just part of the base package.
You read that wrong. I said the vendors charge stupid prices for conference bridging and the Mitel obviously tweaked their PBX to allow a phone to make more calls than any other vendor instead of just opening up conference bridging.
Just because you think it is right base don your experience, does not mean the it is the right solution.
The correct solution has always been conference bridges. Every single place I have worked or consulted for either accepted limited extension based calling or purchased conference bridging in the PBX (prior to Asterisk based solutions obviously).
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
But isn't the real end goal of our technology to provide solutions for the way people do or want to work?
Is it? Or is it to do things the best way possible? Why enable things that are less than ideal if you can give them ideal instead?
I'm not stating an opinion, just offering an alternative way to look at it. Remember most vendors have been burned giving people "what they want", it is generally wiser to give them "the right solution."
You're right - people think they want something, and You're right, we/they need to be led to the best solutions sometimes. So my earlier statement needs to be amended.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
-
@JaredBusch said:
The correct solution has always been conference bridges.
So what makes your chosen solution the correct solution? Just because it's always been the way you've used/sold it doesn't make it right
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
The correct solution has always been conference bridges.
So what makes your chosen solution the correct solution? Just because it's always been the way you've used/sold it doesn't make it right
Because I said so. Obviously.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In any regards, why the need to force people to a conference bridge? Does it somehow make the system more secure? use less resources?
Conference bridges definitely use fewer resources. They use the least possible number of trunks to do the job.
How does it use fewer trunks? the endpoint opens a trunk to the PBX, the PBX opens 4 trunks to outside callers. so 5 total trunks are open.
If we use a bridge, the employee has a trunk to the bridge, and the bridge has 4 more trunks to the outside callers.
Where's the savings? I'm not asking to be snide, I'd really like to know what I'm missing.
Conference Bridge for five users... every user uses one trunk, no matter where they are calling from. So the total trunks is always five.
On phone conference behind a PBX... each internal caller goes to and from the PBX for two trunks. Each outside caller goes to the PBX then to the phone, for two trunks. So a five person call uses ten trunks.
Eh? explain why behind the PBX doubles everything?
