Yes, the technology definitely needs to take a back seat to the ability of the vendor to understand and meet your needs.
Asterisk is a remarkably feature-filled and robust product, but like any of the other tools, you need to find someone who knows how to use it and can offer the support you need. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote: > We took a bid from an Asterix vendor. I actually would have preferred a > Linux-based system, but they were even smaller and less experienced than the > vendor we went with. > > >> I think folks have gotten pretty lackadaisical with "acceptable level >> of service" for computers these days. The phone industry operates at a >> different level. >> >> I hope you've got some good leverage in emphasizing this message to your >> vendor. >> >> I know a few locals who design/build/install/support Asterisk >> installations and them tell me it's a tough business. >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thank you to everyone who responded. >> > >> > I spent most of the day yesterday researching this. I think the problem >> > is >> > related to implementation of "early media" and SIP Code 183 messaging. >> > We >> > are not using SIP trunks; we are interfacing with the PSTN via a Level 3 >> > (formerly Time-Warner Telecom) PRI. I think there is/are a configuration >> > issue(s) related to this messaging somewhere either in the Level 3 >> > service, >> > the Patton gateway, the 3CX VoIP software, and/or the YeaLink phones. >> > >> > This vendor lowballed the bid because, in part, they were not highly >> > experienced in this type of work. They're a white-box computer and IT >> > administrative services vendor who only recently got into phone systems. >> > Ours is, by a few orders of magnitude, the largest phone installation >> > they've ever done, and they had only done a literal handful before us. >> > We >> > trusted them because they've been very good on strictly computer stuff. >> > Their management is failing to accept that this is different: They did >> > not >> > sell us a server, software, switches and phones, separately. They sold >> > us a >> > phone *system*, and they are responsible for all aspects of the system >> > functioning properly. >> > >> > Digital phone systems are also computers, and some of them, including >> > the >> > one we just replaced, also have separate hardware and software >> > components. >> > The fact that VoIP PBX software can run on a Windows computer does not, >> > IMO, >> > change the "business model" with regard to the sale of phone systems in >> > any >> > respect. A digital PBX vendor would immediately accept responsibility >> > for >> > failing to deliver a properly-configured system and fix it, for no >> > charge. >> > >> > I suspect that a more experienced provider would understand this problem >> > and >> > would not have had much difficulty in getting the configuration(s) done >> > correctly. This vendor, due to inexperience, underbid the installation >> > labor >> > cost, and underestimated the difficulty of properly configuring our >> > system, >> > and is now trying to recoup its losses. >> > >> > I sympathize with them, but I am not going to pay them to learn how to >> > design and install phone systems properly. >> > >> > Ken Dibble >> > www.stic-cil.org >> > >> > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cacw6n4vxs+jgtbwbd7snvqvv3ai8yyu+dyvoglzkwrbavcu...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
