Best PBX Software?
-
@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?
-
@Dashrender said:
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
Most power and flexibility, lowest overhead, universally accepted as the right answer, no known downsides, all upsides
What makes anything else a consideration? While you can "make do" with lesser solutions, what's their upside?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Of course, what was I thinking...
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@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.
Of course, what was I thinking...
Heaven only knows.
-
@Dashrender said:
@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?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
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
Most power and flexibility, lowest overhead, universally accepted as the right answer, no known downsides, all upsides
What makes anything else a consideration? While you can "make do" with lesser solutions, what's their upside?
The upside is that when someone is sitting at their desk, they don't have to call someone then transfer them to a conference bridge, then call the next person and do the same, etc.. and finally join the bridge themselves.
While I will admit that I'm probably in a more rare situation, our schedulers make conference calls randomly all day long. They can be on with a patient, a hospital, and two dr's offices.
With these calls happening randomly, it's not reasonable to call those places and say - hey here's the conference bridge, hang up and dial in for me, would ya? and doing the above stated.. call patient, transfer them to bridge, call hospital transfer, call dr 1 transfer, call dr 2 transfer, finally join conference bridge... damn what a huge PITA.I'm sure it's just that this particular situation doesn't happen much outside of medical - who knows.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@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?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
-
@Dashrender said:
@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?
Because it is a switch and instead of communicating through the switch you are making the phone a switch but need every call to go through the first switch. So you are duplicating everything. Just picture the call route, how else would it be possible? The phone isn't going to take calls directly, right?
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@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?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Does it matter? Not really, but there is a reason why it is more powerful. Call recording works properly, everything takes less work, there is less network traffic, it performs better, sounds better, has more features.
Like I asked before, since it's all upsides, why do something else?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@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?
I know this is how it works, I've watched it on FOP2 working this way, I just can't tell you why it works this way.
WOW, that's pretty inefficient! though the next question is, does it matter? It's still not using more than 4 connections on your SIP trunk, and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Does it matter? Not really, but there is a reason why it is more powerful. Call recording works properly, everything takes less work, there is less network traffic, it performs better, sounds better, has more features.
Like I asked before, since it's all upsides, why do something else?
Because you ignored the reason that I posted why we do it the way we do it.
-
@Dashrender said:
The upside is that when someone is sitting at their desk, they don't have to call someone then transfer them to a conference bridge, then call the next person and do the same, etc.. and finally join the bridge themselves.
I don't see the upside. It sounds good when described that way, but are there fewer button presses that way than using a conference bridge? But is the gained business functionality if it is transparent to the users?
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+n-way+call+HOWTO
-
@Dashrender said:
Because you ignored the reason that I posted why we do it the way we do it.
I didn't mean to, it just seemed like a stretch since nothing in your description was different between the two options, or did I miss something? How is it less work to call someone and add them to a local conference than to call someone and add them to a central one? All the same steps in both cases, right? Where is the benefit?
-
@Dashrender said:
...and as long as resources internally aren't an issue, is it worth trying to make this particular situation more efficient?
Just because you can waste internal resources without causing a problem, unless there is a benefit, why add the overhead and limitations?
