Polycom VVX1500 All Show, No Go

The new Polycom VVX1500 is probably the single most exciting and useless product ever released from Polycom. The phone is positioned (too well) as a model for the future. It has rich media capabilities, a built in webcam, and comes with several applications.

The only problem with it is it doesn't appear particularly friendly toward any specific telecom solution other than Broadsof's hosted offerings. The Asterisk community has practically named Polycom their vendor of choice, but somehow this new revolutionary phone got released with firmware that is incompatible with Asterisk and many other SIP phone systems. Switchvox SMB 4 came out just before this phone with a new feature of video conferencing, and somehow the VVX1500 remains incompatible with it (Grandstream offers the only supported phone).

What is really odd is the phone isn't getting any love from any of the limited platforms that do support it. Mitel has never embraced a non Mitel phone, yet at VoiceCon MCO Polycom declared Mitel as the only PBX currently supporting the VVX1500. I visited Polycom.com and used their chat feature to ask which phone systems (I think there are about 3 now) can use the VVX1500 and the representative was unable to find any list. My first thought was Polycom got pressured to limit its support, but there doesn't appear to be a logical victor or culprit to substantiate that theory.

I checked with some sources at Polycom. They said Asterisk is actually great with the VVX1500, but requires a hack. I checked with some folks at Digium and they confirmed both companies are working toward a resolution. What that means who knows, probably a firmware update.

Meanwhile, Polycom's benchmark SoundPoint line has become notably stagnate. The only recent improvement was the IP670 which is the same as the IP650 with a color screen. All of the SoundPoint phones look farily similar, but very different than the VVX1500. I wonder if the cash cow Soundpoints are nearing their end of life in lieu of the new VVX platform which supposedly will grow into a new strategic product line. Even if SoundPoint R&D is terminated, the products will likely continue to sell well for several years.

Polycom makes too many phones. The new CX line (likely not made by Polycom) for OCS are clearly a notch below the Soundpoints - but was a separate line really necessary versus separate firmware offerings?

The VVX1500 is potentially a game changing device. The Soundpoint's really don't capitalize on their IP capabilities - the microbrowser is very limited and largely ignored and the available applications from Polycom aren't particularly compelling. The VVX1500 has a video camera, which obviously can be used for video, but why stop there? Cameras are great at detecting motion - motion can be used to determine lots of interesting things - such as presence (more accurately than keyboard actvity) and occupancy (building controls, security alarm, tracking). Consider the security capabilities (and risks) of having a motion sensor in each cube and office. The phone today detects motion through the camera to determine to wake up (turns off the screen saver), the question is can that motion be translated into an IP event?

The always on IP device's screen is typically demonstrated with personal photos as the screen saver, but the real opportunity is real time information ranging from weather, stock tickers, parking lot videocams, or relevant dashboard information (inventory, billing, transactions, etc.).The more robust screen and application environment, along with the the camera could push this phone into the possible yet elusive "third screen" category. But before it can best the SoundPoint's it needs to meet the basic functionality and compatibility of the SoundPoints.

Irconically, the Soundpoints have been the compatible measure for many SIP phones - it has been easier for phone system vendors to ensure SoundPoint compatibility rather than SIP generally since the standard is so wide. For reasons I can't fathom, Polycom ignored their extensive experience when they released this phone.

I look forward to the next iteration of the Polycom VVX series, hopefully with broader appeal.

Cutting the Cord in VoIP

Here is an apparent contradiction: Quarter over quarter enterprise line shipments are down 22%, yet mobile phones represent one of the fastest growing segments in technology despite the recession. Many of the PBX makers have designated “Mobility” as a critical application for switch makers. Yet, despite this information; a good wireless solution for the PBX remains elusive.

Part of the problem is terminology. This is the industry that thinks it is perfectly understandable that IP technologies (VoIP) are not to be confused with digital technologies. Yes, a strange happenstance that seems to happen regularly in telecom; a term understood by many is reclassified to a very specific meaning. The omnipresent cloud in telecom diagrams should not be confused with cloud telephony, and cordless technologies are not to be confused with wireless or even mobile phones.

It turns out that many of the PBX makers actually get mobile phones pretty well. The ability to make a cell phone quite literally a PBX extension is becoming increasingly popular. The services tend to work very nicely and ironically increases the value of the cell phone more than the PBX. But that is a separate post. But the concept of cordless and wireless phones, a direct device on the PBX remain expensive and limited.

Cordless phones tend to represent analog or digital solutions and are similar to cordless phones available for the residential market. The digital variants are available from major radio companies such as Polycom/Sprectralink and some switch makers such as Toshiba. These phones generally work very well, but are expensive. They are typically (though not always) limited to the range of one base station. But more importantly they are waning in popularity because analog and digital ports are waning in popularity.

Enter the wireless phone; which typically comes in two flavors; Wi-Fi and Dect. These systems usually can be expanded, additional bases increase range. These are the logical winners in the marketplace – VoIP is growing, mobility is growing, and the systems are expandable. They probably are growing, which would not be hard to do. The story here is that there is a huge void in this marketplace; better selection is drastically needed.

In the VoIP world, there are two basic technologies – both are highly limited and expensive. The two technologies are Wi-Fi and DECT. Personally, I am partial to the DECT solutions. Wi-Fi has the benefit of a single infrastructure for wireless computers and phones. Wi-FI management and technologies have come a long way with improved security and manageability. However, Wi-Fi isn’t a great solution for voice. The technology tends to drain batteries quickly, and the standards are very limited around voice prioritization. DECT technologies are fairly young in the US, but mature world-wide. DECT phones are typically IP to the base(s), and proprietary DECT from the base to the phone(s). DECT requires new or separate voice infrastructure, but offers clarity and distance without the big hit on the battery.

I haven't seen them all, but I find most wireless phones difficult to use. I don't see an easy transfer key or a decent speaker. To transfer a call usually involves soft keys and menus which seems silly to me.

The big problem is a bit chicken and egg. No one brand has big enough quantities to drive down prices, and prices are so high that the technology remains limited. Wireless phones are not just a cord free option on a telephone – many factors impact their usability. Consider the phone’s weight, durability, accessories (holster/clips, headsets, etc.), human factors (screen size/fonts, steps involved in transferring a call, quality/size of keypad...), codec support and sound quality, speaker phone quality, etc. These factors are not major differentiators among desk phone choices but make/break factors in wireless phones. Personally, I have yet to find the perfect wireless phone, but here are some models to choose consider:

Wi-FI:

Motorola: Mostly geared to the Enterprise, Motorola has a very strong Wi-Fi solution benefitting from strong Wi-Fi technologies and phone expertise acquired from Symbol and Vocera. Symbol made one of the first Wi-Fi phones on the market, utilizing proprietary technology in their access points. Symbol discontinued the product, but was soon acquired by Motorola which brought it back. Vocera is best known for their “Star Trek” communicator style badges. Motorola and Vocera offer a single phone with PTT instant commnications over Wi-Fi.

Ascom: Ascom offers both DECT and Wi-Fi phones in various models typically privately branded. Their SIP solutions utilize a gateway to deliver advanced features specific to various PBX systems. As with the Motorola phones, they have a wide range of handsets; some specifically made for medical institutions.

Cisco/Linksys: Linksys has a couple of models designed for SOHO users typically using a hosted service.

Polycom/Spectralink: Very popular in the enterprise; lots of history with cordless digital phones. Polycom acquired Spectralink a few years back and keep their name on these products due to its stellar reputation. The Polycom/Spectralink phones tend to use a gateway that works with specific Wi-Fi controllers to ensure quality and voice prioritization. The solution tends to be very expensive, but works nicely.

Nokia: Nokia was one of the first cellular companies to embrace Wi-Fi VoIP capabilities on their phones, they’ve extended their work into non-cellular phones. They tend to be simple SIP phones, that don’t require specialized access points or gateways.

UtStarcom: UtStarCom was one of the first companies to offer broad SIP based Wi-Fi phones. The F1000 is a very basic entry-level phone has been on the market for years.

DECT

Polycom Kirk: These quirky phones from Kirk Telecom (UK) were acquired by Polycom a few years ago. The phones are much more European than other Polycom phones (such as an R key). Some things about the Kirk phones are impressive such as their use of POE in the base units and some things odd such as they only support one line.

Astra: Aastra offers a range of solutions from consumer grade to enterprise including some DECT handsets partnered to corded telephones. The high-end solutions are very expensive and geared toward Enterprise use.I have not seen the Aastra phones yet, but they appear mid priced with POE bases which makes them worth a look (soon).

Siemens Gigaset: New in the US, the phones have found a quick following. They are aimed clearly at the consumer space. Michael Graves got an early model for evaluation and blogged about it here.

Snom: Snom was one of the first with an affordable DECT solution called the M3. I had one briefly. I found the phone crystal clear with excellent range, but generally unusable largely due to its keypad. I found my conclusion was not unique.

What I want in a cordless/wireless phone:

• DECT - has better range, clarity, and battery consumption.
  
• POE Bases
• Bases/phones that enable handoff to additional wired bases - any size footprint
  
• Easy one touch access to hold, transfer, and mute
  
• Decent speaker phone
• Decent keypad - easily press individual buttons - not so small so you hit multiple buttons
• Headset jack (2.5mm cell phone style, not Rj-11)
• Lighted keypad
• Shared directory
• A little bigger than most cell phones
  
• A unit that can stand up.
  
• Multi-Line capability
• HD Voice/wideband Audio
• Speaker phone should be useable for 2 way intercom
• Reasonable price points: Bases <$200, Phones <$250
• Integrated belt clip (not via optional cases)

Clouds Becoming Solid

I have been traveling this week, and it is becoming even more apparent to me how important cloud computing will be changing things. Check out my recent post with the same subject over at UCStrategies.com.

Consider the components of a voice system – processor, directory, storage, gateways, call processing software, trunk hardware, and phones or other endpoints. Plus various applications such as messaging or speech recognition may duplicate most of these components. The cloud is evolving to a model where most of these components can be delivered as a service.

Prediction: Google Voice Premier Edition

If you are not familiar with Google Voice, see my earlier posts here and here.


I have not heard anything about Google Voice recently. I find Google more secretive than Apple used to be. But I do use Google Voice and do pay attention to where the industry is going. If I actually knew anything about Google Voice Premier, I would likely be under an NDA. So this is pure speculation, though hopefully not fiction.



I wrote an article on NoJitter a while back that left an impression with me. It talked about the idea of using a real simple, daresay dumb, solution for a PBX, and outsource the intelligence to the cloud. For a PBX guy, that was a radical thought. But it continues to gnaw at me. Google Voice has its problems. Limitations that make so sense. My theory is when smart companies do dumb things, there is usually a reason. I believe that reason is to make room for Google Voice Premier Edition.

With Google Apps, there is the free basic service and then Google Apps Premier edition. The Premier level solves a number of basic problems that the enterprise customer is willing to pay for (and consumers aren't). Probably the biggest is support, but there is so much more. More storage, more features. Google Voice is currently a free service which is suspicious in itself. I can come up with lots of reasons why it should not be free, such as unlimited free domestic long distance. But I can also come up with a bunch of reasons why Gmail should not be free either. Let's instead talk about the potential Premier Edition of Google Voice.

• One thing missing in Google Voice is number porting - actually number porting in. They currently support number portability out. The fact they support number portability out means everything is in place to support number portability except the desire to do so. Supporting it outbound has a finite risk, but no company wants to hold a customer (especially on a free service) hostage. Number portability inbound is absolutely required for anyone wanting to use the service with a published well known number - like corporations. Many carriers are now charging a fee for number porting. It is a lot of work, too much for a free service.

• But the big opportunity is number portability of DID ranges. This will require two things in the Premier Edition; support of inbound number portability as already mentioned; and an administrative dashboard for the enterprise customer. Most carriers don't really give you much information about the DID ranges - because the intelligence of them is typically based on customer premise equipment. But if the GV Cloud is doing the smart stuff, then corporate administrators need to be able to reassign DIDs to different users and/or devices. This is where Google generally gets it; self help. So when Joe quits the company, the administrator can reclaim and redirect the DID as appropriate.

• SIP Integration: The next thing is a partnership with a SIP carrier. I doubt Google wants to be the SIP carrier, but who knows. The big issue here is outbound callerid. Put in a simple customer PBX that supports SIP trunks, and have the Google Voice number sent out as the outbound callerID (by extension) solves a number of problems. Technically, you can do this with the free version of Google Voice, but some carriers are very picky about outbound callerID numbers. Cbeyond for example, won't allow any numbers that aren't coming in thru CBeyond. Managing the outbound callerID with Google Voice free edition is a pain involving multiple steps. Being able to pick up a desk phone is really simple.

• Directory: GMail Premier offers the ability to integrate with Active Directory. The current Google Voice offers users (same as non users) access to Goog-411, a directory look-up that simply converts the callers speech to text to perform a query and than reads back the results and offers to transfer the call. Combine that application with a corporate directory and say goodbye to the spell by name directory.

• Presence: Phone Status/Presence integration. At this time, there is no communication between Google Voice and Google Chat. As with many alternative enterprise solutions, the ability for presence to change to "in a call" based on phone status makes a lot of sense. Factor in associated numbers such as cell phones and home numbers working as business phones, and this presence capability can leap frog many of the current PBX offerings today. A real impressive trick would be to enable video conferencing with audio and video on separate channels. So a user can utilize his/her desk or cell phone and still turn on their webcam without having to reset up the call as a videoconference.

• Outbound Calling Features: Several Google Voice features are limited to inbound calls only. Audio-conferencing, for example. Premier Edition will likely offer a way for the user to initiate a conference call. Initiating calls is a painpoint in general, but Google Voice Premier will likely support speed dials either by DTMF touch-tone or speech recognition.

• Call Record: The current free version offers call recording, but with audible notification. Silent Call Recording will be possible with Premier Edition. Most PBX solutions that offer call recording can do so silently. There are some very old rules around this that freak people out, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the recorder, not the recording technology provider, to adhere to relevant laws.

• App Integration: Google Voice currently offers very little integration with the other Google Apps. Gmail and Google Voice share contacts, but it sure would be nice to have my calendar read to me or be able to respond to an email with either a call button instead of reply.
  

• Call Center: I expect the Premier Edition to support call center capabilities. Rudimentary or advanced call center capabilities are available on nearly all phone systems and hosted providers. For Google to deliver on managing inbound calls in a competitive way, some call center capabilities need to be included. This is visibly missing from the current free edition. Call center capabilities include reporting, attendant groups, and queues. A more advanced capability might include skills based routing. Another critical feature is an automated call attendant, or even an IVR capability possibly combined with Google's speech recognition capabilities.

• Gadgets: Google Voice Gadgets are needed. Desktop support/integration is critical to the current generation of Unified Communications technologies. These can be simple solutions or APIs. For example, Switchvox can look up a callerid (uses Google) and displays on a Google Map the location of the caller. Other popular applications are click to dial solutions. I downloaded a third party click to dial solution for Google Voice that works well within a browser, but what about from a CRM or even Outlook? Google Voice can take some automated steps now based on incoming CallerID, but the next level will be an API that could potentially open the CRM and update an entry.

The big difference between Google Voice and most of the alternatives cloud services is GV doesn't include basic phone service. You need a phone to utilize Google Voice. That leaves the customer with a potential choice - purchase a sophisticated all in in one solution AKA the robust VoIP switch. Or, utilize a service such as Google Voice and use a mixture of PBX, Cell, and even home lines for dial tone. This free's up Google from the headaches associated with trunking hardware, phones, and 911 - and can dramatically simplify the premise PBX while simultaneously leveraging cloud technologies for nationwide services. Consider an organization with an office in each state; all 50 offices on a single intelligent service with local control over telecom hardware. Really all that is needed locally is a solution that supports direct dial numbers; ideally a SIP trunked phone system, but don't dismiss simple phones from the local wired or wireless carrier.

Google tends to quietly connect the dots. A solution as I described above will be very expensive on a PBX - presence, video, networked sites, click to dial from various applications, etc. Google has the ability to tie these together as they already have so many of the necessary components (apps, desktop clients/gadgets, current Google Voice) in place. The current service is not really appropriate for the enterprise, but with very little notice, don't be surprised to find Google Voice Premier at a reasonable price point disrupting enterprise voice.

Anyone wanting to compete with Google Voice should be taking a strong hard look at Skype. I posted an article a while back about the strategic importance of buying Skype (when eBay announced their desire to sell Skype). Skype has the network, the desktop client, and the installed base to make things interesting. Even better, Skype as the ability to integrate directly to the PBX with its Skype to SIP and Skype to Asterisk gateway beta products.

To quote my good friend Ann Elk: "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too."

Three Recent OCS Posts

There is no single product that has the potential to disrupt the IP PBX marketplace more than Microsoft's OCS. The closest analogy is when Cisco got into voice around 2000 – they were a powerful company without a voice offering and decided to use their strong presence and cash reserves to leverage the disruptive opportunity of VoIP with a new successful product line. Cisco has done very well with their products, and they played fair.

The competitive landscape was mostly digital phones and Cisco took on the mission (along with Vonage) of explaining to the world why VoIP was a better architecture. The technology was revolutionary, but the implementation was evolutionary. They offered phones, voice mail systems, T1/PRI hardware, advanced applications – basically same bun, different burger.

Close to ten years later Microsoft enters the scene, but there is no timely disruptive technology to exploit. So instead, Microsoft is making progress by redefining the problem and solution. Microsoft positions OCS as a totally new paradigm. They believe the desktop computer, not the phone, is the heart of a communications system, they believe it's time to dump all the T`1/PRI lines for SIP trunks. They believe messaging shouldn't be unified (where voice mail and email servers share information), but rather consolidated into a single Exchange solution. And they question the very need of phones in a phone solution.

The reality is that SIP, soft phones, presence, and unified messaging are commonly offered as options with almost all solutions. Microsoft's truly unique piece is how they leverage their desktop market share with an integrated desktop VoIP proposition. Their vision is also a strength based on its clarity, not so common in this industry. OCS is being rapidly adopted as a presence server, but its voice capabilities are being embraced slower. Phone systems don't sell as quickly as IT servers – but there are takers.

Aspect caught my attention with some impressive ROIs announced with their OCS implementation. I was curious if their ROI was based on hard or soft savings and met with Jamie Ryan their CIO. That resulted with a post over at UCStrategies: Hook, Line and Call Center, Aspect swallows it all. Aspect bought into it; all of it. They bought into the presence part and the voice parts for their worldwide locations. They are also rapidly integrating OCS into their products and services that they offer. Microsoft really could not ask more from a customer, but they did anyway. Microsoft asked for an equity stake – probably using the great minds think alike proof.

Regardless of where you stand on OCS, Aspect deserves praise and respect for not only taking such a bold initiative with their OCS deployment, but for doing anything. So many customers are sitting on the economic sidelines. Get out and do something.

One thought I had while writing that story was the notion of the safe bet right now in UC or telecom. I have never seen so many things in play in this industry before. The PBX makers are rapidly working on embracing the desktop (and OCS). Skype and Google have very strong desktop/presence components are ramping up their voice capabilities with totally different perspectives. There are cloud based and hosted complete solutions and an emerging sector of hosted API tools. Companies that have hardware among their greatest strength are rushing to be software only companies. The expanding adoption of SIP support is turning the carrier and phone market on its side. Our love affairs with our cell phones are permanently changing the telecom equation, and throw in SMS, IM, Email, and Twitter and the concept of defining complements versus competitors gets even more blurred.

No one ever got fired for buying IBM (in the 70s) and that became Microsoft in the 90s. But I am not sure who the safe bet is now. The fact is telecom and IT folk like innovation, but like safety too. We push out competitors and like to keep our choices simple. We pushed out Novell, OS2, Token Ring, and so many others keeping the mainstream tech list short and manageable. Though I am not so sure that model applies in telecom.

Today, over at NoJitter.com there is a piece that looks at OCS as a safe choice (or not). The problem is with so much changing in telecom/UC right now, I am not sure what a safe choice looks like any more. Just before it declared bankruptcy, Nortel looked like a safe choice to most. Between CEBT, Google, Skype, Cloud computing, hosted solutions, and good ol Asterisk – the safe choice becomes quite personal. Which risks do wish to minimize? OCS could be a safe choice based on many criteria, but not by the virtue alone that it is from Microsoft.

Then this is this post about OCS. A few more dangling particples about the OCS solution that didn't fit in with the others.

The OCS solution is a bit young. Its first version was positioned around presence and had some limited PBX integration partners. That product was called Live Communications Server of LCS. Microsoft's live franchise isn't as powerful as their Office Franchise, so version two was renamed Office Communications Server R2. It was the first offering positioned as a PBX alternative. The product is still very young – all young products suffer from a chicken and egg syndrome to some degree. In this case, it is around hardware. Microsoft doesn't make phones, but Polycom does. Polycom introduced the CX line of phones specifically for this market (these phones do not appear to be made by Polycom) (remember Microsoft isn't even sure you need phones). But Polycom (or Microsoft) forgot conference saucers. A strange thing to forget really, particularly since Polycom has done so well with speaker phones. Now Microsoft announced a new relationship with HP, which will bring more phones. Will SIP phones replace all PBX phones? It is a shame that the SIP phone solutions such as Microsoft's and Digium's are not the same.

A current hole in the OCS line is integration with cell phones. Avaya and Mitel and several others offer cell phone integration AND OCS integration. This means when a user receives a call on their cell phone, their OCS status can change to "In a Call" and the user can send the call back to their corporate phone (reducing minute charges) fairly simply. I have no doubt that Microsoft will be adding these features to OCS soon, but they aren't there in R2.

OCS does presence very well, better than most alternatives because it is integrated throughout Office. Many people consider presence the killer app for voice – the next big thing. And one hand I agree, because I have seen how it does improve productivity. But I am also ready for Presence ver 2. The time saving logic of presence primarily manifests itself as: don't call people unless they are there, or don't call people when they are already on the phone.

When I started teleworking before my colleagues, it was great being able to see presence. Sometimes, depending on presence of others, it would determine if I would go into the office or not. I need to chat with Jack – oh good he is in today. But as others started teleworking, I found myself driving to the office only to discover Jack was at home teleworking. I think presence with location could be even more helpful, but many prefer the anonymity of online rather than online at home. The green dot really only tells me Jack is at a computer. This is great for IM, but not all that helpful for voice. There are lots of times where Jack is at his computer, but not available for a call. And lots of times where Jack is not at his computer (driving) when he is available for a call. I find myself more and more ignoring presence information. There has to be a better solution. IM taught us how powerful presence can be, but we really have not evolved it yet to telecom.

OCS also changes status based on the Outlook calendar. "Available" turns into "In a meeting" even if my calendar states "stay in office for calls". Yes, there are ways to override this, but that adds complexity. I used to have this feature with Esna's voice mail product – it could actually put your phone in Do Not Disturb every time you have an appointment. Problem is sometimes those are phone appointments and now they can't call. I love automation and I believe we are eventually going to get there.

What I really like about OCS/IM is that it can integrate with external systems such as AIM. Most of the vendors are creating their own IM solutions or islands. The term is "network externality" – it means the value of things increase the more people have them. One fax machine in the world is useless, each new fax machine purchased increases the value ever so slightly of my fax machine. The vast majority of the PBX makers are offering some form of internal IM; Microsoft was right on with their federation angle and public gateway solution.

When VoIP entered the PBX scene, it was considered a disruptive technology. We all braced ourselves for rapid change and it came. But that was just the preview, the real show is about to t begin.

HD Voice, Clearly

There has been a lot of chatter lately about HD Voice – sometimes referred to as the G.722 codec. Some people consider it the defining improvement to desktop phones – others (me) might consider it the only improvement to the desktop phone. The subject even had its own Jeff Pulver sponsored conference recently. One more thing crystal clear on this topic is there is a lot of confusion. For example, owners of most of the newer Polycom Soundpoint phones will see a new HDVoice logo right on the handset. But that does not mean these users are experiencing HDVoice. It simply means the phone is capable of it. Like all codec's it takes two to tango – but in most voice communications it takes more than two.

First, what is HDVoice? HDVoice is a registered trademark of Polycom, it is really referring to an emerging standard for wideband audio on telephones based on the 722 Codec. Our ears can hear a frequency range of 20 Hz - 20KHz, though most of us can't hear frequencies above 15 KHz. The original analog PSTN phone supports a frequency range of 300 Hz – 3.4KHz. This is why classical piano is the recommended music on hold – the vast majority of the higher frequencies we hear are outside the audio range of telephones. Wideband phones support a frequency range of 30 Hertz – 7 KHz just about double the traditional narrow band standard. For reference, the human voice range is about 80-14KHz..

This is clearly illustrated in FM radio advertisements where the actors do a mock phone conversation – one is clear (FM radio goes to 15KHz) and the other person is tunneled into a narrow band. Without being able to see any actors or props, the radio listener has no confusion about which actor is "on the phone". Well, it turns out that audio range of the phone was designed a very long time ago, and not until recently has anyone considered improving it. The complexity in improving the standard is it isn't just the phones – the entire public network of carriers, gateways, switches, and phones are built around this narrow band standard.

When there is no PSTN involved, there was really no need to limit the audio to narrowband, but no one really cared. Most phone systems are not purchased for internal calls. But VoIP changed the game a bit, because now phone systems are networked between sites via IP trunks. Over the past few years, SIP trunks (an industry standard IP trunk) started connecting systems and supporting wide band turns out not to be very complex (though many SIP carriers do not support it).

So with phones in place and an increasing number of carriers supporting G.722 – wideband phones are positioned well for rapid growth. It turns out that G.722 is not complex and many phones can be upgraded with firmware. Cisco recently announced a firmware upgrade for this very reason. Wideband audio doesn't even require more bandwidth. Personally, I find it disappointing that this long overdue upgrade is still so limited; if we are going to go to all this trouble, why not go to 15Khz? But things are in play for G.722 to catch-on this year.

The name of this blog, Pin Drop Soup, refers to the last time we were sold on the clarity of voice communications. Analog communications tend to be hissy (think records vs. CDs), when Sprint completed their national upgrade to an all digital network, they convinced us the sound of a pin drop was the ultimate test. The Memorex commercials with Ella breaking the glass might be more appropriate for wideband – though unfortunately not with a high range around 7Khz.

There is an extraordinary amount of confusion regarding wideband voice. The issue is that all codecs involved in the communication path need to agree to the G.722 codec. Some technologies negotiate with the end point (correct) and some negotiate with the end (or midspan) switch. This can result in something called transcoding. Ideally, the endpoints of the conversation negotiate the codec used for the call, but if they can't agree, additional processing will be required to transcode the mismatched codecs. Thus, a processing node would have to convert inputs from one wideband codec to the supported codec. Excessive transcoding can introduce delays and degrade voice quality. Transcoding is common between land lines and celluar calls as landlines generally use G.711 codec and cellular calls use multiple codecs optimized for wireless transmissions.

I have a wideband phone, but I don't believe my headset is wideband. Many phone systems don't support wideband at all. Microsoft OCS is currently restricted to narrowband as are many of the digital phone systems currently on the market. But even when all the equipment is wideband compliant, the vast majority of the PSTN is not – if you are using traditional T1, PRI links, or even analog links, dialing 9 to get out may indeed be setting the codec to narrow band communications. And remember, it requires end to end communications – so talking to someone say on a cell phone or narrow band G.711 connection means both ends are narrow, not just their end.

This month, for the first time I experienced a customer that didn't like wideband. The solution required changing the phones to narrowband handsets. Though I consider this the exception, the fact is there are still many people that prefer music on AM over FM radio. This particular customer had a noisy environment. They felt their bullpen environment resulted with too much noise being sucked into the handset's microphone and didn't consider wideband an improvement. Rather than deal with the background noise, they liked things the way the were – narrow. Just goes to substantiate why there are so many different voice solutions out there.

The Value of VoIP

Forbes Magazine ran an article with the same title. It is so odd reading about telecom in mainstream press. Every reference to something technical is immediately followed with a definition. For us professionals, we can't write or read this way largely because we can't agree on any of these things. For example:

"Rao purchased a "Voice over IP" phone system, including software from Cisco (which routes the calls and plays nicely with her existing Windows operating system), as well as phone units for each user. With VoIP (the "IP" stands for Internet Protocol), calls travel over data networks like the Internet, rather than via traditional phone lines that are expensive to maintain.
Total cost of the installation: $12,000."

The bolded sections seem contentious in professional circles. Is Cisco the most Microsoft friendly solution, and small business systems like this one frequently use standard analog trunks which by no means are more expensive to maintain. I find these puff pieces frustrating, as there are so many interpretations and so few facts. The article did spell out the motivation for upgrading to VoIP:

"Remote employees couldn't connect; traveling employees couldn't be reached and customers got busy signals (remember those?). When people did get through, many couldn't get routed to the right person to help them."

These are all terrible problems that deserve immediate attention, but I must point out that VoIP has nothing to do with any of these problems. VoIP refers to a protocol, and protocols do what they are told to do; at least mostly. The protocol used has absolutely no impact on busy signals (capacity), call routing (finding the right person), or in reaching people while they are traveling. Now, obviously there are some high-end UC capabilities that can make a difference that may indeed be associated with a new VoIP platform – but not likely at 12,000 Cisco-Bucks (I wish the article stated the size of the phone system).

Now it does indeed seem that teleworking, a true VoIP application, was implemented. The article states:

"…two employees who work from home. They have handsets that plug right into their home computers, connecting them to the company phone system through their own broadband connections. Now calls to the main number are sluiced to their home phones; if not answered, they bounce back to a live person or voicemail, without callers knowing."

I found this odd. I am a big fan of teleworking and can rattle off many reasons why it is probably the single most important phone system feature this decade. If I were asked to rattle off some benefits of teleworking, they would include productivity, employee satisfaction, employee retention, reduced carbon emissions, flexibility in workforce fit, etc. At some point, maybe on page three, I would come up with the ability to bounce calls to voice mail. Of course, I would have actually said "Sluiced back to voicemail".

Further, to clarify a point above, this type of teleworking does require IP phones and does indeed use the Internet. However, the desk phones back at world headquarters do not need to be IP. I am somewhat alone in my crusade for the digital phone, but the fact is they do all the same things for a lot less money. I am a VoIP (systems) proponent, but don't see much value in VoIP phones. Back to Forbes for some sizzle now:

"It gets cooler still. The voicemail system navigates callers through a simple automated directory. Any messages get converted into sound files that can be e-mailed, forwarded or saved."

Unified messaging has been around so long that I forget it still impresses people. The real interesting stuff now involves speech to text and text to SMS which aren't mentioned. Even for small business, basic unified messaging (I hope it wasn't simple SMTP forwarding – that's for the birds) is a bit passé in 2009.

Here comes the finale:

"When we're dealing with big customers, we have to appear to be bigger," she says. "We need to look professional. We need to be accessible. We wouldn't be able to survive if we didn't make this investment."

The article indicates the company had a very old phone system, the business was growing, and busy signals were a problem. I totally agree and support that a new phone system was very logical. Only two points concern me. One, they have to appear to be bigger; and two that VoIP was critical to their survival. I hear the first point all the time, companies want to appear bigger. But appearing big is easy. Just don't appear small. Appearing small is a main number and extensions, no direct dial numbers. That's about it. SIP trunks allow direct dial numbers on very small phone systems. Appearing big is actually a bad thing – appearing big is endless auto attendants, long queues for service, and voice mail hell. Big companies actually strive to appear smaller; go figure.

The second point is VoIP is a technology not a solution. Claiming that VoIP was for survival cheats Darwin. Survival in a competitive world, during a recession requires getting more done with less. Sophisticated voice applications that can quite literally transform a business is what Forbes should be focusing on. The topic should not be about VoIP, but about voice capability enhancements, customer satisfaction improvements, customer retention, reduced costs, reducing the amount of time to make decisions. VoIP is a (wonderful) technology, it is right up there with FM and radial tires. It is not a solution in itself. The title for this post and more importantly for that article is very misleading. There is no value in VoIP. The value is in streamlined cost effective reliable communications.