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 krdibble@stny.rr.com 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]
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 krdibble@stny.rr.com 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 krdibble@stny.rr.com 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]
Not exactly related.
I use *eVoice* http://www.evoice.com and our grandson uses *Grasshopper http://grasshopper.com*
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2115-v2-a This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2115-v2-a <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
*Shai / שי Charles Hart Enzer, M.D., FAACAPVolunteer Associate Professor of PsychiatryUniversity of Cincinnati Medical CenterWebSite:http://TinyURL.com/EnzerMD http://TinyURL.com/EnzerMD*
*“There is no passion to be found playing small -- in settling for a life** that is less than the one you are capable of living.”*
*Nelson Mandela* *Stop **Spammers** and **Virus Propagation* *Before forwarding, please delete the history of all email address*
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Ted Roche tedroche@gmail.com wrote:
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 krdibble@stny.rr.com 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 krdibble@stny.rr.com
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]
-
Charles Hart Enzer, M.D. -
Ken Dibble -
Ted Roche