Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
it's worse - not only each extension - each connection. For example, As JB just mentioned, I recently got VOIP.ms to work with my PBX. This requires SIP licenses for each simultaneous call. Another $250+ per license.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
Sunk cost. We've been down this road about his boss before.
I know. But it means that spending money unnecessarily was something that they wanted to do to get into the sunk cost scenario to begin with. In fact, sunk cost itself is effectively defined as as desire to spend money unnecessarily.
Sunk cost = wants to spend money.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
I wouldn't go that far.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
-
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
I wouldn't go that far.
I don't know much consumer gear that doesn't make that easy.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
-
@coliver said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
He needs handsets, though. That's his financial hump to overcome.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@coliver said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Basically - to add another phone is $500.
For that price you could be on FreePBX.
He needs handsets, though. That's his financial hump to overcome.
Yeah I think I remember this from another conversation.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
I have an internal PBX, with zero external phones/devices. The only thing I'm using external is the SIP service. Since I'm using registration, I don't need any firewall rules to make it work.
You don't have a single user wanting another office, or a doctor wanting to make calls from home? That's getting to be pretty rare. Even our manufacturing customers tend to want phones at home.
Oh, of course we do - but they (the boss) doesn't want to pay for it.
How is that not free?
He has Mitel and has to pay licensing for it.
He has to license each extension?
It's odd to use "not wanting to pay for it" in conjunction with "uses Mitel" which means that they "wanted to pay for things for no real reason." Paying for it is what they wanted to do that got them into the situation.
Sunk cost. We've been down this road about his boss before.
I know. But it means that spending money unnecessarily was something that they wanted to do to get into the sunk cost scenario to begin with. In fact, sunk cost itself is effectively defined as as desire to spend money unnecessarily.
Sunk cost = wants to spend money.
I love when you say these things. No one in the history of the planet has ever thought to themselves: Hmmm... I want to waste money on a phone system, so I'm going to buy this Mitel thing over here and blow a ton of money on it. And any little scratch I get, since I already blew that money on this thing, I'm going to forever more continue to just scratch those itches and spend whatever I need to to get my fix.
Did they fail in the first place by not hiring a buyer's consultant to find possible solutions? Likely.
How did they find themselves in the current situation? either a: called buddy - hey what/how are you using? do you like it? ok I'll get that too OR b: opened yellow pages to phone vendors and called an ad that looked good.
In both cases, at the time, they were given a price they could live with - having no clue what other options were available and at what costs... but again, they never had that first conversation with themselves that I posted at the top of this reply.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
I think both is best, most secure. I prefer password for ease of movement and failover, I prefer IP for security, it's far harder to hack an IP than to get a username/password.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Then I'd have to open the firewall to allow it - and I'm not sure what I'd have to lock down on the PBX to ensure people aren't hacking it.
Two seconds of work on FreePBX. Or on your firewall. Locking a port to a single IP is a trivial task for any gear, even consumer.
Bzzt wrong answer.
You cannot do that with roaming users.
That works great for a trunk, but not your stated case of needing it open for remote phones.
I thought that he was talking about the trunk provider.
I mean I still think that, one IP (or one set of IPs), not roaming users. Setting this up for a situation like Skyetel. Nearly zero effort.
If he already had roaming users, it would already be open and be zero work.
This whole thing stemmed from JB saying he doesn't like using IP based authentication.
I asked - is that because IP based authentication requires opening firewall ports?
yes - opening firewall ports is nearly zero effort, but not zero. But using registration isn't zero either, you have to enter a username/password into the PBX. so Meh.
I think both is best, most secure. I prefer password for ease of movement and failover, I prefer IP for security, it's far harder to hack an IP than to get a username/password.
I was thinking the same thing. IP seems more secure.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Sunk cost = wants to spend money.
I love when you say these things. No one in the history of the planet has ever thought to themselves: Hmmm... I want to waste money on a phone system, so I'm going to buy this Mitel thing over here and blow a ton of money on it.
Actually, they sort of do. You just defend them and try to make them seem more rational than they are.
What they actually say is "I don't care about wasting money, that's not my priority."
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Did they fail in the first place by not hiring a buyer's consultant to find possible solutions? Likely.
And how is that a failure? Not by wanting to waste money, but by not caring about wasting money.
It's not that they waste money only to waste it, it's that they waste it because not spending money isn't important to them.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
How did they find themselves in the current situation? either a: called buddy - hey what/how are you using? do you like it? ok I'll get that too OR b: opened yellow pages to phone vendors and called an ad that looked good.
Calling a buddy, instead of doing any research or hiring an expert, is not caring about not wasting money. It's lazy, it's unprofessional, it's not business sensible, it's not rational. But humans aren't rational and getting them to not want to waste money is actually hard.
The first step is not pretending it doesn't happen. As long as we act like this craziness is rational, the easier it is for everyone to justify not acting rationally.
The problem is, they chose the system based on emotion, and their emotions drove, and continue to drive, them to waste money. No matter how you try to frame it, losing that money results in something that they desire and most likely the desire is a combination of wanting to not to put in any effort combined with not wanting you to realize they were fools after the fact.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
Did they fail in the first place by not hiring a buyer's consultant to find possible solutions? Likely.
And how is that a failure? Not by wanting to waste money, but by not caring about wasting money.
It's not that they waste money only to waste it, it's that they waste it because not spending money isn't important to them.
I know you call it adulting to be completely aware that one should hire a buying consultant pretty much for every decision - but I just don't consider that the norm thinking.. is that itself a failure - absolutely.. who's failure? Now that I'm not sure - our parents? our education system? simply ourselves? I suppose some of all of those. But it's also the reality. My issue with your constantly stating this is that you believe they are consciously going out of their way to "not save money" and I don't see it that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
How did they find themselves in the current situation? either a: called buddy - hey what/how are you using? do you like it? ok I'll get that too OR b: opened yellow pages to phone vendors and called an ad that looked good.
Calling a buddy, instead of doing any research or hiring an expert, is not caring about not wasting money. It's lazy, it's unprofessional, it's not business sensible, it's not rational. But humans aren't rational and getting them to not want to waste money is actually hard.
The first step is not pretending it doesn't happen. As long as we act like this craziness is rational, the easier it is for everyone to justify not acting rationally.
The problem is, they chose the system based on emotion, and their emotions drove, and continue to drive, them to waste money. No matter how you try to frame it, losing that money results in something that they desire and most likely the desire is a combination of wanting to not to put in any effort combined with not wanting you to realize they were fools after the fact.
I totally agree that it happens.. but I don't consider it a malicious act like you appear to think it is.
-
@Dashrender said in Skyetel Inbound SIP Trunk on FreePBX:
In both cases, at the time, they were given a price they could live with - having no clue what other options were available and at what costs... but again, they never had that first conversation with themselves that I posted at the top of this reply.
They had clues, you CAN'T keep treating them like they are that stupid. No one is. This is the continuous "other people are so dumb, but I'm smart and my friends are smart" thing that we all want to do because it makes us feel superior. But it just isn't true, they might be lazy, they might be irrational, they might be uncaring, they might be making excuses, but they are not mentally handicapped and clueless. Don't feed that system again, it's your (and most peoples') "go to" excuse for people not acting in a business fashion and it is illogical and unrealistic, they can't possibly be as dumb as you hope that they would be to make these kinds of mistakes repeatedly.
A "price they can live with" is just a polite way of knowing that they weren't getting a good deal but felt you were gullible and they could say anything and you'd buy it.
Bottom line, they didn't bother to spend less, because spending more is easier and they were likely insanely lazy because they wanted to spend more to do less, and like most people probably felt good about that because it is socially acceptable to be stupid and to claim stupidity as an excuse for not doing due diligence nearly every time.
