Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Voip implementation

Last response: in Networking
Share
April 21, 2004 1:25:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Hi,

I am an IT graduate student and doing a term paper on Voip
implementation. I am a assuming a company XYZ has a point to point T1
connection between three locations(Cincinnati,Chicago & Detroit).The
company plans to implement Voip at each of these locations.There are
fifty users at each of the location.My questions are:

1.How many phone & fax lines can be accomodated on the T1 line?
2.Will the T1 line be able to handle all 50 users simultaneously?
3.How do you calculate the above(1) & (2)?
4.What is point-to-point T1 line: does it mean that there is a
dedicated line that runs between one location's Lan to the
other location's Lan?
or there is a dedicated line between one location & the internet
backbone (ib) & from the ib to the other location?
5.How does one go about figuring out the cost of
hardware,software,manpower & time to implement Voip in the company
XYZ?

Would really appreciate if you can let me know on the above.

thanks,
Teju

More about : voip implementation

Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:50:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <ac9830d7.0404202025.50c499e5@posting.google.com>,
Trilok <trilok1@coolgoose.com> wrote:
: I am an IT graduate student and doing a term paper on Voip
:implementation.

: 1.How many phone & fax lines can be accomodated on the T1 line?

A channelized T1 would have 24 independant timeslots, 1.544 megabits
per second total. Each timeslot could be used to carry a telephone-
company quality call of 8000 samples per second, 8 bits per sample.
(The extra 8000 bits are used to carry control information.)

That's for standard calls. VOIP would, though, typically use IP
and compression techniques to reduce the data stream requirements,
and for VOIP you wouldn't necessarily want to channelize your T1.

: 2.Will the T1 line be able to handle all 50 users simultaneously?

You can always adjust the VOIP lossy compression algorithm parameters
until the data fits. You need a minimum-quality metric in order to
make a decision about how many VOIP can be carried.

: 3.How do you calculate the above(1) & (2)?

(1) is by specification of T1, which you can research in IETF
standards (or just look up on some page or other at cisco.com)

(2) is the much more difficult question, as it depends upon the
quality of your perceptual coding algorithms and upon your standards
of intelligability at the other end. It also depends on whether the
VOIP is truly being used to carry -voice-, or if sometimes you want
to run fax over it, or if sometimes you want high-quality music...


: 4.What is point-to-point T1 line: does it mean that there is a
: dedicated line that runs between one location's Lan to the
: other location's Lan?

Yup, pretty much. It might go through some switching equipment at
various telco's along the way, but there would be a dedicated circuit
(and probably a dedicated timeslot) on each and every one of those
switches)

: or there is a dedicated line between one location & the internet
: backbone (ib) & from the ib to the other location?

Not for a point-to-point line. But there are variations of that
approach such as ATM in which what one gets is dedicated virtual
circuits. Point-to-point T1's always connect the same two locations;
virtual circuits in some of the other technologies allow bandwidth
guarantees to be established for the duration of a session, with
the endpoints being determinable dynamically (provided the endpoints
are both in the service area of the technology.)

: 5.How does one go about figuring out the cost of
:hardware,software,manpower & time to implement Voip in the company
:XYZ?

One hires a consultant who has done it before. If you try to do
VOIP with people who are unfamiliar with the technology and haven't
had to do similar real-time work before, chances are excellent that
mistakes will be made, configurations will be experimented with,
the wrong equipment will be bought, the wrong dedicated line type will
be installed (on a multi-year contract), the internal switches won't
be upgraded to QoS, or won't be upgraded to handle enough simultaneous
channels... etc., etc.. So if you aren't hiring a consultant to
determine all these prices on your behalf, then whatever figure you
come up with yourself, you had better multiply by about 8 for hardware
and change the implimentation time to "person-years" where you had
"person-months" before.
--
Are we *there* yet??
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:05:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Questions questions questions.

The point to point T1 for Data would just be a 1.544M data stream. So the
question arises, what compression (if any) would you use? No compression,
no way you'll get 50 users on there. How much Data is on the link sharing
bandwidth with the VoIP traffic, or is it a dedicated link for VoIP? If
there's data, do you have QoS on it? Do you have Modem lines? Fax and
Modem lines are more susceptible to compression then voice. What kind of
jitter, and latency do you have on these T1s? How susceptible are they to
packet loss?

So, in other words, there are so many possible variables to consider to make
VoIP work that you won't get them all in a note, and consultants charge
around $5,000 per site just to evaluate it.

JT


"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:c64ujj$4j2$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <ac9830d7.0404202025.50c499e5@posting.google.com>,
> Trilok <trilok1@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> : I am an IT graduate student and doing a term paper on Voip
> :implementation.
>
> : 1.How many phone & fax lines can be accomodated on the T1 line?
>
> A channelized T1 would have 24 independant timeslots, 1.544 megabits
> per second total. Each timeslot could be used to carry a telephone-
> company quality call of 8000 samples per second, 8 bits per sample.
> (The extra 8000 bits are used to carry control information.)
>
> That's for standard calls. VOIP would, though, typically use IP
> and compression techniques to reduce the data stream requirements,
> and for VOIP you wouldn't necessarily want to channelize your T1.
>
> : 2.Will the T1 line be able to handle all 50 users simultaneously?
>
> You can always adjust the VOIP lossy compression algorithm parameters
> until the data fits. You need a minimum-quality metric in order to
> make a decision about how many VOIP can be carried.
>
> : 3.How do you calculate the above(1) & (2)?
>
> (1) is by specification of T1, which you can research in IETF
> standards (or just look up on some page or other at cisco.com)
>
> (2) is the much more difficult question, as it depends upon the
> quality of your perceptual coding algorithms and upon your standards
> of intelligability at the other end. It also depends on whether the
> VOIP is truly being used to carry -voice-, or if sometimes you want
> to run fax over it, or if sometimes you want high-quality music...
>
>
> : 4.What is point-to-point T1 line: does it mean that there is a
> : dedicated line that runs between one location's Lan to the
> : other location's Lan?
>
> Yup, pretty much. It might go through some switching equipment at
> various telco's along the way, but there would be a dedicated circuit
> (and probably a dedicated timeslot) on each and every one of those
> switches)
>
> : or there is a dedicated line between one location & the internet
> : backbone (ib) & from the ib to the other location?
>
> Not for a point-to-point line. But there are variations of that
> approach such as ATM in which what one gets is dedicated virtual
> circuits. Point-to-point T1's always connect the same two locations;
> virtual circuits in some of the other technologies allow bandwidth
> guarantees to be established for the duration of a session, with
> the endpoints being determinable dynamically (provided the endpoints
> are both in the service area of the technology.)
>
> : 5.How does one go about figuring out the cost of
> :hardware,software,manpower & time to implement Voip in the company
> :XYZ?
>
> One hires a consultant who has done it before. If you try to do
> VOIP with people who are unfamiliar with the technology and haven't
> had to do similar real-time work before, chances are excellent that
> mistakes will be made, configurations will be experimented with,
> the wrong equipment will be bought, the wrong dedicated line type will
> be installed (on a multi-year contract), the internal switches won't
> be upgraded to QoS, or won't be upgraded to handle enough simultaneous
> channels... etc., etc.. So if you aren't hiring a consultant to
> determine all these prices on your behalf, then whatever figure you
> come up with yourself, you had better multiply by about 8 for hardware
> and change the implimentation time to "person-years" where you had
> "person-months" before.
> --
> Are we *there* yet??
Related resources
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 11:03:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

"Joe Technician" <Joe@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:hinhc.63945$dg7.45876@edtnps84...
> Questions questions questions.
>
> The point to point T1 for Data would just be a 1.544M data stream. So the
> question arises, what compression (if any) would you use? No compression,
> no way you'll get 50 users on there.

you need to be careful what you are talking about here. The number of users
at the site may not be the same as the number of simultaneous calls you
support offsite.

e.g. if this is a call centre, then there should be 1 external voice "line"
per agent or more (or you cant run the call centre at full load, or cant Q
waiting calls etc).

if it is a business site, then there are normally fewer lines than users -
1:4 is a ratio sometimes used for offices at work, but it really depends on
how much phone use is likely, how many calls go outside, how near the worst
case peak you want to allow for.....

Also, the scenario the OP described doesnt mention where / when calls go out
to the PSTN - given 3 sites there could be a public voice connection at each
site, just at 1 site or another combination - the arrangement will change
how much of the total offsite voice traffic needs to go down each T1 link.

How much Data is on the link sharing
> bandwidth with the VoIP traffic, or is it a dedicated link for VoIP? If
> there's data, do you have QoS on it? Do you have Modem lines? Fax and
> Modem lines are more susceptible to compression then voice. What kind of
> jitter, and latency do you have on these T1s? How susceptible are they to
> packet loss?

And what is the voice encoding? if you look at the cisco design guides for
call manager, they assume G.711 for LAN calls, and G.729 for WAN calls. The
bandwidths would work out at 80k and 14 to 28k per call respectively (both
are full duplex)

have a look at the call manager design docs at
www.cisco.com/go/srnd

they will at least give you an impression of what such a design would look
like.
>
> So, in other words, there are so many possible variables to consider to
make
> VoIP work that you won't get them all in a note, and consultants charge
> around $5,000 per site just to evaluate it.
>
> JT
>
>
> "Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
> news:c64ujj$4j2$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > In article <ac9830d7.0404202025.50c499e5@posting.google.com>,
> > Trilok <trilok1@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> > : I am an IT graduate student and doing a term paper on Voip
> > :implementation.
> >
> > : 1.How many phone & fax lines can be accomodated on the T1 line?
> >
> > A channelized T1 would have 24 independant timeslots, 1.544 megabits
> > per second total. Each timeslot could be used to carry a telephone-
> > company quality call of 8000 samples per second, 8 bits per sample.
> > (The extra 8000 bits are used to carry control information.)
> >
> > That's for standard calls. VOIP would, though, typically use IP
> > and compression techniques to reduce the data stream requirements,
> > and for VOIP you wouldn't necessarily want to channelize your T1.
> >
> > : 2.Will the T1 line be able to handle all 50 users simultaneously?
> >
> > You can always adjust the VOIP lossy compression algorithm parameters
> > until the data fits. You need a minimum-quality metric in order to
> > make a decision about how many VOIP can be carried.
> >
> > : 3.How do you calculate the above(1) & (2)?
> >
> > (1) is by specification of T1, which you can research in IETF
> > standards (or just look up on some page or other at cisco.com)
> >
> > (2) is the much more difficult question, as it depends upon the
> > quality of your perceptual coding algorithms and upon your standards
> > of intelligability at the other end. It also depends on whether the
> > VOIP is truly being used to carry -voice-, or if sometimes you want
> > to run fax over it, or if sometimes you want high-quality music...
> >
> >
> > : 4.What is point-to-point T1 line: does it mean that there is a
> > : dedicated line that runs between one location's Lan to the
> > : other location's Lan?
> >
> > Yup, pretty much. It might go through some switching equipment at
> > various telco's along the way, but there would be a dedicated circuit
> > (and probably a dedicated timeslot) on each and every one of those
> > switches)
> >
> > : or there is a dedicated line between one location & the internet
> > : backbone (ib) & from the ib to the other location?
> >
> > Not for a point-to-point line. But there are variations of that
> > approach such as ATM in which what one gets is dedicated virtual
> > circuits. Point-to-point T1's always connect the same two locations;
> > virtual circuits in some of the other technologies allow bandwidth
> > guarantees to be established for the duration of a session, with
> > the endpoints being determinable dynamically (provided the endpoints
> > are both in the service area of the technology.)
> >
> > : 5.How does one go about figuring out the cost of
> > :hardware,software,manpower & time to implement Voip in the company
> > :XYZ?
> >
> > One hires a consultant who has done it before. If you try to do
> > VOIP with people who are unfamiliar with the technology and haven't
> > had to do similar real-time work before, chances are excellent that
> > mistakes will be made, configurations will be experimented with,
> > the wrong equipment will be bought, the wrong dedicated line type will
> > be installed (on a multi-year contract), the internal switches won't
> > be upgraded to QoS, or won't be upgraded to handle enough simultaneous
> > channels... etc., etc.. So if you aren't hiring a consultant to
> > determine all these prices on your behalf, then whatever figure you
> > come up with yourself, you had better multiply by about 8 for hardware
> > and change the implimentation time to "person-years" where you had
> > "person-months" before.
> > --
> > Are we *there* yet??
--
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 7:10:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <6jog80ti74p2i31a9jueuboeqqdvk3atne@4ax.com>,
Mitel Lurker <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote:
:Ask Cisco how many line key appearances they offer on their most robust IP
:D esktop instrument. Better hope you or your admins don't need more than 6,
:'cause that's the limit. With Mitel's 5220IP set (14 lines all by itself)
:you can go to 62 lines with the addition of a PKM48 module and all the way
:to 110 lines with 2 PKM48s.

{Sputter.} We were doing more than 6 [pure-digital] line appearances
20 years ago when I was working on the Mitel SX-2000. The
figure that sticks in my mind is that my simulation software (for
demonstrating the console at trade shows) had 8 line appearances
and that at the time our hardcoded limit was 20 [but that made for
a crowded display, with all the bar graphs showing the size of the
call queues.)

If I recall correctly (don't count on it!), we were running the whole show
off of a pair of 68020's @ 20 MHz each, per line rack, plus some DSPs.
(I covetted those 68020's -- my 68000 machine at home only ran at 8 MHz,
and 20 MHz was so much nicer...) Our development systems were Vaxen,
780's as I recall. The SX2000 boot images were stored on bubble memory...

But my NDA probably in theory still prohibits me from talking about
which language we programmed it all in ;-)
--
"[...] it's all part of one's right to be publicly stupid." -- Dave Smey
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 11:43:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <c6a1fq$aea$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>{Sputter.} We were doing more than 6 [pure-digital] line appearances
>20 years ago when I was working on the Mitel SX-2000.

Errrr.... that would be E-stream, MS-2001 as memory serves me. It was a
15-line set using digital signalling and control superimposed on the
analog voice channel. See? You're not the only old fart around here. If
you really are that old then you must surely remember the "Lew Barnhouse
College of SX2000 Knowledge" - 5400 Broken Sound Blvd, Boca Raton, FL.
Still got my original cert with his signature on it.... or was it Mike and
Terry's Lawnmower Service... I forget >>smile<<

>If I recall correctly (don't count on it!), we were running the whole show
>off of a pair of 68020's @ 20 MHz each, per line rack, plus some DSPs.

68020 @ 20 Mhz is correct.

>But my NDA probably in theory still prohibits me from talking about
>which language we programmed it all in ;-)

Wouldn't have been ADA, would it?

And while here, I need to correct my previous post. Cisco actually does
have some side modules similar in concept to the PKM that can extend their
6-line high end IP set to accomodate addt'l line keys. Unfortunately their
basic 6-line set is near $400 compared to the 14-line Mitel 5220 at barely
over $200.
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 7:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <ctaj80lsi0d1ehf7gnb1d1f222atpbsk90@4ax.com>,
Mitel Lurker <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote:
:In article <c6a1fq$aea$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
:roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

:>{Sputter.} We were doing more than 6 [pure-digital] line appearances
:>20 years ago when I was working on the Mitel SX-2000.

:Errrr.... that would be E-stream, MS-2001 as memory serves me. It was a
:15-line set using digital signalling and control superimposed on the
:analog voice channel.

I don't remember the official designation. I'm pretty sure it wasn't
MS-2001. We called it "The SX2000 Console". I believe you are referring
to the -next- major product that went through, which did some hybrid
SS7 signalling as a transition-level product.


:See? You're not the only old fart around here. If
:you really are that old then you must surely remember the "Lew Barnhouse
:College of SX2000 Knowledge" - 5400 Broken Sound Blvd, Boca Raton, FL.
:Still got my original cert with his signature on it.... or was it Mike and
:Terry's Lawnmower Service... I forget >>smile<<

I predate anyone in the USA knowing anything about the SX2000 ;-)

I was an co-op/student programmer at Mitel in the year leading up to the
SX2000 launch. As I recall, my official contribution of record was
the debugging of the "Call Forward" protocols, and the design and
implimentation of "Camp on - Busy" and "Camp on - No Answer". But I also
ended up building a bunch of the development tools, taking on noticable
portions of the systems administration, and doing a *lot* of integration
testing and debugging -- so my fingers ended up in the pies of nearly
everything -except- the programming of the digital line cards themselves,
the development of the bubble-memory subsystem. I also did was not involved
in the development of the compilers themselves, but because the nightly
builds somehow ended up in front of me, I did end up doing some
work with the compiler people (when the compiles failed, or the image
didn't work, I'd be debugging the switch code or debugging the compilers...)


:>But my NDA probably in theory still prohibits me from talking about
:>which language we programmed it all in ;-)

:Wouldn't have been ADA, would it?

ADA was still in the discussion phases in that timeframe.

Nah, my NDA probably expired about 15 years ago -- I'm just embarrased
to name the development language ;-)


Ah, those were the days... We had some good people, and I wonder what
happened to some of them. I learned a lot. Even got my heart broken
for the first time ;-)
--
The Knights Of The Lambda Calculus aren't dead --this is their normal form!
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 11:41:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <c6cmup$360$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>I don't remember the official designation. I'm pretty sure it wasn't
>MS-2001.

There's an old TSB still on Mitel Online, doc # MD4209-NA-01 written Dec
'98 which states in part: <quoted>

1.1 MS2001 (E10)
This release introduced the following:
Hardware
" Superset™3, Superset™ 4 & Superset™7 introduced
" Dataset 1 & 2 introduced
" Redundant File System developed
" Almost every control card required major hardware & firmware rev
changes from C-stream including the COV cards.
" Double ribbon cable on the winchester disk drives
" Greater than 1 Peripheral Pair
Maintenance
" "restrict" Command to load balance Per Pairs (Rotary sets & DID
Trunks)
Features
" Advanced ARS
" Advanced Data
" SMDR

<end quote>

The reference here of course being to officially released, shipping
hardware and program code...

>I was an co-op/student programmer at Mitel in the year leading up to the
>SX2000 launch.

That would had to have been 1982 then. The SX2000 was officially released
to production in 1983 with software level C17 (MS2000).

Quoting again from that same document....

4.1 MS2000 (C17)
The SX-2000 finally exited field trials with C17 software. There was
limited functionality in this release. There was no redundant file system
on this single cabinet SG.
" Hardware
" SG - Single Cabinet, Non-Redundant
" Features
" Limited Functionality (Basic Voice)

<end quote>

The multiline "digital sets" (Superset 3 and 4) did not come along
(officially) until MS2001 and software stream release E10.4 in 1984.
(there was no D-stream). Somewhere I heard rumors of a "Superset 1" but
I've never seen one and have been so far unable to confirm its existence.

>Nah, my NDA probably expired about 15 years ago -- I'm just embarrased
>to name the development language ;-)

Ahah, so you know COBOL!!! You know of course this means you will have to
be cryogenically frozen until the year 2999 so you can be thawed out at
that time to help mankind deal with transitioning their computers of the
era to Y3K ;-)

>Ah, those were the days... We had some good people, and I wonder what
>happened to some of them. I learned a lot. Even got my heart broken
>for the first time ;-)

MaryJo? (drool....)
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 8:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <v0mk80d8h13hhmuqmclschfsf24nh99qd0@4ax.com>,
Mitel Lurker <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote:
:The multiline "digital sets" (Superset 3 and 4) did not come along
:( officially) until MS2001 and software stream release E10.4 in 1984.
:( there was no D-stream). Somewhere I heard rumors of a "Superset 1" but
:I've never seen one and have been so far unable to confirm its existence.

Now that name, "Superset 1", sounds familiar in the timeframe I was
there. Somewhere in the back of my mind, some neurons are firing
suggesting to me that the Superset 1 was released first in the UK.

I am *sure* the SX-2000 console, whatever it's official model number,
was multi-line and pure digital -- I worked with it a bit on
some throw-away code for the launch demo.


:Ahah, so you know COBOL!!!

PERFORM MYLIFE VARYING DENY_KNOWING_COBOL TO TRUE.


:>Ah, those were the days... We had some good people, and I wonder what
:>happened to some of them. I learned a lot. Even got my heart broken
:>for the first time ;-)

:MaryJo? (drool....)

I didn't work with any "MaryJo". Sounds like a name from the Corporate
side. No, a fair bit of the development team was not much older than I --
if you had 6 years of experience you were entitled to be a "senior
programmer" (3rd official ranking up, not including students); pretty
much anyone over the age of 26 was a manager, and by 33 you would
definitely be a senior manager, perhaps with 2 levels below you (and
the students below that.) But as they say, some comrades are more equal
than others, and to be a senior development manager was certainly to
have much less real power and prestige than a more junior manager on
the corporate side.


> 1982

January 1982 to mid-September 1983 for me. It was an interesting time
to work there (the Kanata development lab). I went back to university
after that, which was a bit tough to re-adapt to after many months of
very long days doing real development work. I could have stayed, and
life would have been very different if I had; but I heard the whole
Mitel corporate culture changed a *lot* over the two years after that
(high inflation, low sales, OPEC crisis.) By 1985 or so, some of
the people I had worked with had left Mitel and were saying they'd
never go back.

If it had all happened a dozen years later, it would have been a
typical dot-com experience -- work hard, almost cultish-ly so, with
some great people, to get out A Product That Will Change The World...
only to have the product not do so well, the whole culture turn sour
compared to the early days, big layoffs, talk of bankruptcy, founders
forced out, people burnt out, etc..


And now that you have me going over my memories of that time, and having
gained a bit of perspective, I think I'd say that experiences like that
are addictive -- there's a real "rush" in feeling like you're working
hard for a Good Cause, that the problems are tough but your team is is
bright and conquers them, that you belong, that what you are doing
is Important, and that you yourself are Important because you are
giving so much of yourself to the Cause.
--
This signature intentionally left... Oh, darn!
Anonymous
April 25, 2004 12:34:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <c6e6cn$741$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:


>I am *sure* the SX-2000 console, whatever it's official model number,
>was multi-line and pure digital -- I worked with it a bit on
>some throw-away code for the launch demo.

The first SX2000 "Console" was in fact pure digital and the PBX card that
ran it was called a "High Speed Digital Line Card" and supported a max of
8 consoles, but only a fool ever dared to put more than 4 on one card due
to bus congestion on the backplane, a limitation which never improved
throughout the entire life of the SG machine. The released/shipping
console of that era was called the "Superset 7". Believe it or not I just
finally retired 3 of those things back in 2001 when we (finally) replaced
5 cabinets of SG hardware (2 main controls and total of 3 PER cabinets)
with 34 cabinets of SX2K Light (4 main controls). The SX2K Light
architecture successfully compressed a full entire SX2000SG "Control
Plane" (line rack) down to TWO plug in boards. The new MN3300 ICP machine
squeezes the whole freakin switch down to "2U" in a 19" rack (700 lines
present max cap. of the 3300)

>:Ahah, so you know COBOL!!!

>PERFORM MYLIFE VARYING DENY_KNOWING_COBOL TO TRUE.

ROTFLMAO!

>January 1982 to mid-September 1983 for me. It was an interesting time
>to work there (the Kanata development lab).

The Kanata lab is still there and going strong. They sold off the
semiconductor devision to pump capital back into the PBX. Terry Matthews
has been back at the helm for a couple years now and has breathed some new
life into the company, hired a bunch of engineers, etc. If 9-1-1 and the
Enron debacle hadn't happened, it would have gone public by now. In case
you didn't know, they bought Gandalf and March Networks a while back,
which of course became the impetus for the new MN3300 VOIP product.

Did you happen to know a gent by the name of Claude Richard?
April 26, 2004 5:53:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Ahh you Mitel boys bring a tear to my eye. Recently I removed an SX-200 I
maintained and replaced it with an option 11. I watched as the trash men
hauled her away since no home was to be found for, even her parts.

John 807
"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
news:vl3m80l2jd99r0ab104vnnp7gplapspqk2@4ax.com...
> In article <c6e6cn$741$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>
> roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
>
>
> >I am *sure* the SX-2000 console, whatever it's official model number,
> >was multi-line and pure digital -- I worked with it a bit on
> >some throw-away code for the launch demo.
>
> The first SX2000 "Console" was in fact pure digital and the PBX card that
> ran it was called a "High Speed Digital Line Card" and supported a max of
> 8 consoles, but only a fool ever dared to put more than 4 on one card due
> to bus congestion on the backplane, a limitation which never improved
> throughout the entire life of the SG machine. The released/shipping
> console of that era was called the "Superset 7". Believe it or not I just
> finally retired 3 of those things back in 2001 when we (finally) replaced
> 5 cabinets of SG hardware (2 main controls and total of 3 PER cabinets)
> with 34 cabinets of SX2K Light (4 main controls). The SX2K Light
> architecture successfully compressed a full entire SX2000SG "Control
> Plane" (line rack) down to TWO plug in boards. The new MN3300 ICP machine
> squeezes the whole freakin switch down to "2U" in a 19" rack (700 lines
> present max cap. of the 3300)
>
> >:Ahah, so you know COBOL!!!
>
> >PERFORM MYLIFE VARYING DENY_KNOWING_COBOL TO TRUE.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> >January 1982 to mid-September 1983 for me. It was an interesting time
> >to work there (the Kanata development lab).
>
> The Kanata lab is still there and going strong. They sold off the
> semiconductor devision to pump capital back into the PBX. Terry Matthews
> has been back at the helm for a couple years now and has breathed some new
> life into the company, hired a bunch of engineers, etc. If 9-1-1 and the
> Enron debacle hadn't happened, it would have gone public by now. In case
> you didn't know, they bought Gandalf and March Networks a while back,
> which of course became the impetus for the new MN3300 VOIP product.
>
> Did you happen to know a gent by the name of Claude Richard?
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 12:10:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Assuming that was an old SX200 Analog or an analog-converted digital
(Black box), don't apologize, you did the right thing. Not even the Mitel
secondary market salvage shops have any use for that old iron. Oh maybe
Mike Sandman in Chicago would have taken it. On the off chance it was a
200ML or 200EL, Terry Cunningham at Dean Enterprises would have given you
something for it. The 200ML/EL is a nice little system, ideal hotel/motel
or small to medium size office.

Where I come from an "807" is either an old power tetrode or a can of
beer.

In article <GYZic.27598$t26.7575510@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
<jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:

>Ahh you Mitel boys bring a tear to my eye. Recently I removed an SX-200 I
>maintained and replaced it with an option 11. I watched as the trash men
>hauled her away since no home was to be found for, even her parts.
>
> John 807
April 28, 2004 11:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Yeah, it was an old analog sx-200 that some unauthorized snake oil salesman
sold the customer about 4 years ago claiming it was new then disappeared.
Through a friend of a friend I ended up servicing the account after
informing the customer the switch was '80's vintage and giving him the
option to upgrade then. Since he had just bought the switch we limped it
along until the batteries on the gen. 217 died and he didn't want to replace
and reprogram.

"807" old Bell Atlantic I.D. number (take away your name and give you
a number) Name that song?


John 807
"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
news:h4vt80tum7d6ule6776pfisc74svb9t3ko@4ax.com...
> Assuming that was an old SX200 Analog or an analog-converted digital
> (Black box), don't apologize, you did the right thing. Not even the Mitel
> secondary market salvage shops have any use for that old iron. Oh maybe
> Mike Sandman in Chicago would have taken it. On the off chance it was a
> 200ML or 200EL, Terry Cunningham at Dean Enterprises would have given you
> something for it. The 200ML/EL is a nice little system, ideal hotel/motel
> or small to medium size office.
>
> Where I come from an "807" is either an old power tetrode or a can of
> beer.
>
> In article <GYZic.27598$t26.7575510@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
> <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >Ahh you Mitel boys bring a tear to my eye. Recently I removed an SX-200 I
> >maintained and replaced it with an option 11. I watched as the trash men
> >hauled her away since no home was to be found for, even her parts.
> >
> > John 807
>
Anonymous
April 28, 2004 11:01:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Snake oil salesmen gotta eat too. 5 years ago I sold and installed a
4-Line 1A2 system (WECO 551 shoebox) + Melco dial intercom and a
half-dozen refurb'd 2565 HCK's to a boat shop in Bettendorf, Iowa. The guy
needed phones & intercom *REAL BAD* but had no money. I showed him how to
change lamps and gave him a spare interruptor and some extra 400D cards.
Got an xmas card from him last year, and said phones are working fine. You
cannot kill 1A2.

In article <jcTjc.27776$Gd3.6669249@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
<jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:

>Yeah, it was an old analog sx-200 that some unauthorized snake oil salesman
>sold the customer about 4 years ago claiming it was new then disappeared.
>Through a friend of a friend I ended up servicing the account after
>informing the customer the switch was '80's vintage and giving him the
>option to upgrade then. Since he had just bought the switch we limped it
>along until the batteries on the gen. 217 died and he didn't want to replace
>and reprogram.
>
> "807" old Bell Atlantic I.D. number (take away your name and give you
>a number) Name that song?
>
>
> John 807
>"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
>news:h4vt80tum7d6ule6776pfisc74svb9t3ko@4ax.com...
>> Assuming that was an old SX200 Analog or an analog-converted digital
>> (Black box), don't apologize, you did the right thing. Not even the Mitel
>> secondary market salvage shops have any use for that old iron. Oh maybe
>> Mike Sandman in Chicago would have taken it. On the off chance it was a
>> 200ML or 200EL, Terry Cunningham at Dean Enterprises would have given you
>> something for it. The 200ML/EL is a nice little system, ideal hotel/motel
>> or small to medium size office.
>>
>> Where I come from an "807" is either an old power tetrode or a can of
>> beer.
>>
>> In article <GYZic.27598$t26.7575510@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
>> <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>> >Ahh you Mitel boys bring a tear to my eye. Recently I removed an SX-200 I
>> >maintained and replaced it with an option 11. I watched as the trash men
>> >hauled her away since no home was to be found for, even her parts.
>> >
>> > John 807
>>
>
April 29, 2004 4:17:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Perfect application for 1A2 and it still works if the power goes out. Free
music on hold as the interrupter goes Ka-Chunk Ka-Chunk. I've still gotta
couple of them out there horse farms and such. I didn't mind the guy selling
the sx-200 it was the misrepresentation of its age that bothered me. I'm
sure you didn't tell the guy at the boat yard that the 551 was brand new and
state of the art and walk away with brand new system money in your pocket.
Are you in Iowa, what systems do you do other than Mitel?

John 807
"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
news:n0g090h9colqhirsbdj7o5e0vde2u7ard6@4ax.com...
> Snake oil salesmen gotta eat too. 5 years ago I sold and installed a
> 4-Line 1A2 system (WECO 551 shoebox) + Melco dial intercom and a
> half-dozen refurb'd 2565 HCK's to a boat shop in Bettendorf, Iowa. The guy
> needed phones & intercom *REAL BAD* but had no money. I showed him how to
> change lamps and gave him a spare interruptor and some extra 400D cards.
> Got an xmas card from him last year, and said phones are working fine. You
> cannot kill 1A2.
>
> In article <jcTjc.27776$Gd3.6669249@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
> <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >Yeah, it was an old analog sx-200 that some unauthorized snake oil
salesman
> >sold the customer about 4 years ago claiming it was new then disappeared.
> >Through a friend of a friend I ended up servicing the account after
> >informing the customer the switch was '80's vintage and giving him the
> >option to upgrade then. Since he had just bought the switch we limped it
> >along until the batteries on the gen. 217 died and he didn't want to
replace
> >and reprogram.
> >
> > "807" old Bell Atlantic I.D. number (take away your name and give
you
> >a number) Name that song?
> >
> >
> > John 807
> >"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
> >news:h4vt80tum7d6ule6776pfisc74svb9t3ko@4ax.com...
> >> Assuming that was an old SX200 Analog or an analog-converted digital
> >> (Black box), don't apologize, you did the right thing. Not even the
Mitel
> >> secondary market salvage shops have any use for that old iron. Oh maybe
> >> Mike Sandman in Chicago would have taken it. On the off chance it was a
> >> 200ML or 200EL, Terry Cunningham at Dean Enterprises would have given
you
> >> something for it. The 200ML/EL is a nice little system, ideal
hotel/motel
> >> or small to medium size office.
> >>
> >> Where I come from an "807" is either an old power tetrode or a can of
> >> beer.
> >>
> >> In article <GYZic.27598$t26.7575510@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
> >> <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >Ahh you Mitel boys bring a tear to my eye. Recently I removed an
SX-200 I
> >> >maintained and replaced it with an option 11. I watched as the trash
men
> >> >hauled her away since no home was to be found for, even her parts.
> >> >
> >> > John 807
> >>
> >
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 10:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

I'm in Texas. Used to be from Iowa, and still go back for visits now and
then. It was during one of those visits that the old friend prevailed upon
me to set him up with something dirt cheap but reliable. I basically
contributed my labor. He contributed the beer and gave me $300 for the
KSU, phones, cabling, spares, etc. He & his kid pulled the cables through
the ceiling, I punched them down, ran a couple dozen jumbers and made the
sign of the cross with my foot when we fired it all up. Ooops, forgot they
were 2565's; can't bridge 'em without pulling the violets off... ;) 

Today I am employed by a major energy company. Much to the chegrin of
local area service shops, we are COAM and do it all ourselves, from power
& grounding & startup commissioning to advanced ARS. Counting me there are
4 of us on staff all with Mitel certs through LW32 rls 2 and MN3300 rls
4.1, including Ops Man, ACD-2000, ISDN PRI and oh yeah, Speak@Ease. At one
time we were (may still be) one of Mitel's largest "all DC powered"
customers (except for the new MN3300 stuff). We've been a Mitel customer
(and COAM) since 1985. For diversity, I also have a 300-seat Etrali
Etradeal turret system networked (ETSI Q.sig) to the Mitel. It's enhanced
Q.sig over 4 E1 Pri's including the usual CLI/CNI plus CFwd BZ/NA reason
codes, MWI set/clear & transparent integration to a pair of networked
Octel Overture 250's.

Mitel's 3300 VOIP system is way cool and blows the competition away.


In article <4QXjc.33621$Gd3.7629629@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
<jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:

>Perfect application for 1A2 and it still works if the power goes out. Free
>music on hold as the interrupter goes Ka-Chunk Ka-Chunk. I've still gotta
>couple of them out there horse farms and such. I didn't mind the guy selling
>the sx-200 it was the misrepresentation of its age that bothered me. I'm
>sure you didn't tell the guy at the boat yard that the 551 was brand new and
>state of the art and walk away with brand new system money in your pocket.
>Are you in Iowa, what systems do you do other than Mitel?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 6:24:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
news:4u23905dlednbq7622fncha7c99ov1vbph@4ax.com...
> I'm in Texas. Used to be from Iowa, and still go back for visits now and
> then. It was during one of those visits that the old friend prevailed upon
> me to set him up with something dirt cheap but reliable. I basically
> contributed my labor. He contributed the beer and gave me $300 for the
> KSU, phones, cabling, spares, etc. He & his kid pulled the cables through
> the ceiling, I punched them down, ran a couple dozen jumbers and made the
> sign of the cross with my foot when we fired it all up. Ooops, forgot they
> were 2565's; can't bridge 'em without pulling the violets off... ;) 
>
> Today I am employed by a major energy company. Much to the chegrin of
> local area service shops, we are COAM and do it all ourselves, from power
> & grounding & startup commissioning to advanced ARS. Counting me there are
> 4 of us on staff all with Mitel certs through LW32 rls 2 and MN3300 rls
> 4.1, including Ops Man, ACD-2000, ISDN PRI and oh yeah, Speak@Ease. At one
> time we were (may still be) one of Mitel's largest "all DC powered"
> customers (except for the new MN3300 stuff). We've been a Mitel customer
> (and COAM) since 1985. For diversity, I also have a 300-seat Etrali
> Etradeal turret system networked (ETSI Q.sig) to the Mitel. It's enhanced
> Q.sig over 4 E1 Pri's including the usual CLI/CNI plus CFwd BZ/NA reason
> codes, MWI set/clear & transparent integration to a pair of networked
> Octel Overture 250's.
>
> Mitel's 3300 VOIP system is way cool and blows the competition away.

I think you need to take a good look at the competition. After, you can
edit your above statement to:
"Mitel's 3300 VOIP system blows."

>
>
> In article <4QXjc.33621$Gd3.7629629@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
> <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >Perfect application for 1A2 and it still works if the power goes out.
Free
> >music on hold as the interrupter goes Ka-Chunk Ka-Chunk. I've still
gotta
> >couple of them out there horse farms and such. I didn't mind the guy
selling
> >the sx-200 it was the misrepresentation of its age that bothered me. I'm
> >sure you didn't tell the guy at the boat yard that the 551 was brand new
and
> >state of the art and walk away with brand new system money in your
pocket.
> >Are you in Iowa, what systems do you do other than Mitel?
>
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 12:28:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <Nktkc.3276$Wy3.454@news01.roc.ny> "Nortec in MN"
<Nortel@Frontier-deletethistoreply-Net.net> writes:

>I think you need to take a good look at the competition. After, you can
>edit your above statement to:
>"Mitel's 3300 VOIP system blows."

Granted, I haven't seen all the competing products, but I have seen both
the Cisco Call Manager and their Call Manager Express, actual systems in
service and working, not the spiffy "lab queens" set up in Cisco's
show-n-tell customer seminars. I have also talked to the techs who
installed and maintain the stuff. Funny how much different of a picture
they paint than the rosy picture painted by the sales bunch.

The best I can think of to describe the Cisco offering in a real world
setting is to say it's a general hodge-podge of applications and adjunct
devices all hanging off the network and managed by a cluster of Intel
based servers running an assortment of ->CISCO PROPRIETARY<- versions of
Microsoft products (SQL, Win2K Server, MS Exchange, etc). The real beauty
is that the whole shootin' match of course comes with Cisco's standard
90-day warranty, after which everything must be put on a Smartnet contract
else you get no support. Imagine that, no support beyond 90 days unless
you agree to be held hostage and pay a recurring ransom. You can't even
(legally) download the latest IOS bugswats (past 90 days) unless you
either pay for the new IOS or pay for Smartnet. The cost of a basic IOS
used to be pretty reasonable, but it seems now that Cisco has plugged that
hole, making the cost of an IOS upgrade nearly equal that of the cost of a
smartnet contract. The obvious question that comes to mind is, "how many
more times do I have to keep paying for this?"

Go into a site with only a basic 2600 router and you'll find yourself
having to replace that router and possibly even add another one. You'll
also need some additional flash and Dram.

Ask Cisco if they can emulate a key system with a "common ringer" for
multiple incoming lines to all ring the same bell (i.e., a set of Dan-Mac
barn bells or a Claxon buzzer or a yard whistle) and look at the blank
stares on their faces. Need a pc/laptop based soft phone? If you do you'll
need their centralized Call Manager product because you sure can't do it
with CME.

Mitel at least gives you a full 1-year warranty on their hardware and you
get lifetime free software upgrades. The Mitel (3300) also includes
built-in voice mail and supports legacy TDM devices in addition to the IP
stuff. With the Mitel solution you will -not- need to replace your router
or add another one. Mitel is also -not- based on any Windows/Intel
platforms.

VOIP (in general) may be viable in *new* small & medium sized office
installations, but IMO for forklift replacement of existing TDM systems or
going into a large enterprise (corporate office) setting, you're going to
find yourself pouring cubic dollars into it, no matter whose system you
buy. IP phones also require power, either via a local wall wart or from a
power-insertion device in the switch in the wiring closet. That can be a
problem all its own in harsh environments. I know several places where I
have phones today where there is no AC power nearby.

You might have yourself bamboozled into believing you're going to save
money on future MACs, but for every dollar you save on MACs you're likely
to find yourself spending 2 dollars on VOIP system maintenance/support.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 2:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Wow... a Sales pitch on Usenet.... touting the values of 40 Year old
TDM features. Can it do a party line too?

Its a whole new world. Your arguments read like a Mitel sales guy
trying to throw out any negative thing he has ever read about VOIP in
general, and Cisco in particular. That blank stare you talked about
will be them working to suppress laughter imagining you trying to figure
out how to work a 40 year old solution to a 40 year old requirement,
into a modern system.

Perhaps the solution to these requirements, can be met in whole new ways?

Mitel Lurker wrote:
> In article <Nktkc.3276$Wy3.454@news01.roc.ny> "Nortec in MN"
> <Nortel@Frontier-deletethistoreply-Net.net> writes:
>
>
>>I think you need to take a good look at the competition. After, you can
>>edit your above statement to:
>>"Mitel's 3300 VOIP system blows."
>
>
> Granted, I haven't seen all the competing products, but I have seen both
> the Cisco Call Manager and their Call Manager Express, actual systems in
> service and working, not the spiffy "lab queens" set up in Cisco's
> show-n-tell customer seminars. I have also talked to the techs who
> installed and maintain the stuff. Funny how much different of a picture
> they paint than the rosy picture painted by the sales bunch.
>
> The best I can think of to describe the Cisco offering in a real world
> setting is to say it's a general hodge-podge of applications and adjunct
> devices all hanging off the network and managed by a cluster of Intel
> based servers running an assortment of ->CISCO PROPRIETARY<- versions of
> Microsoft products (SQL, Win2K Server, MS Exchange, etc). The real beauty
> is that the whole shootin' match of course comes with Cisco's standard
> 90-day warranty, after which everything must be put on a Smartnet contract
> else you get no support. Imagine that, no support beyond 90 days unless
> you agree to be held hostage and pay a recurring ransom. You can't even
> (legally) download the latest IOS bugswats (past 90 days) unless you
> either pay for the new IOS or pay for Smartnet. The cost of a basic IOS
> used to be pretty reasonable, but it seems now that Cisco has plugged that
> hole, making the cost of an IOS upgrade nearly equal that of the cost of a
> smartnet contract. The obvious question that comes to mind is, "how many
> more times do I have to keep paying for this?"
>
> Go into a site with only a basic 2600 router and you'll find yourself
> having to replace that router and possibly even add another one. You'll
> also need some additional flash and Dram.
>
> Ask Cisco if they can emulate a key system with a "common ringer" for
> multiple incoming lines to all ring the same bell (i.e., a set of Dan-Mac
> barn bells or a Claxon buzzer or a yard whistle) and look at the blank
> stares on their faces. Need a pc/laptop based soft phone? If you do you'll
> need their centralized Call Manager product because you sure can't do it
> with CME.
>
> Mitel at least gives you a full 1-year warranty on their hardware and you
> get lifetime free software upgrades. The Mitel (3300) also includes
> built-in voice mail and supports legacy TDM devices in addition to the IP
> stuff. With the Mitel solution you will -not- need to replace your router
> or add another one. Mitel is also -not- based on any Windows/Intel
> platforms.
>
> VOIP (in general) may be viable in *new* small & medium sized office
> installations, but IMO for forklift replacement of existing TDM systems or
> going into a large enterprise (corporate office) setting, you're going to
> find yourself pouring cubic dollars into it, no matter whose system you
> buy. IP phones also require power, either via a local wall wart or from a
> power-insertion device in the switch in the wiring closet. That can be a
> problem all its own in harsh environments. I know several places where I
> have phones today where there is no AC power nearby.
>
> You might have yourself bamboozled into believing you're going to save
> money on future MACs, but for every dollar you save on MACs you're likely
> to find yourself spending 2 dollars on VOIP system maintenance/support.
May 1, 2004 2:32:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

I think Mitel has done an excellent job with the 3300. Even the new SX200
ICP, NICE! Mitel has come a long way in the last 4 years. Looking at the
sales of IP-PBX's (i.e. 3300 from Mitel, Succession 3.0 from Nortel, and
whatever AVAYA offers) Mitel has done well. They have 11 percent of the
market share, with Nortel @ 15% and good old AVAYA sitting at 9%. Looking
at these facts, it's easy to see Mitel knows what they are doing.

You know, dealing with Mitel technical support and engineering, it's nice to
see they truly follow their motto... "It's about you!" Mitel really does
take customer suggestions and implement them into their product. Today you
will find it hard find a product that is as customizable as a Mitel.

And "NO!" I don't work for Mitel or a Mitel dealer.

Take care,
Neil

Ps. Wow Cisco has 34% of the market share. . . Why? (I'm being smart!)


"Nortec in MN" <Nortel@Frontier-deletethistoreply-Net.net> wrote in message
news:Nktkc.3276$Wy3.454@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
> news:4u23905dlednbq7622fncha7c99ov1vbph@4ax.com...
> > I'm in Texas. Used to be from Iowa, and still go back for visits now and
> > then. It was during one of those visits that the old friend prevailed
upon
> > me to set him up with something dirt cheap but reliable. I basically
> > contributed my labor. He contributed the beer and gave me $300 for the
> > KSU, phones, cabling, spares, etc. He & his kid pulled the cables
through
> > the ceiling, I punched them down, ran a couple dozen jumbers and made
the
> > sign of the cross with my foot when we fired it all up. Ooops, forgot
they
> > were 2565's; can't bridge 'em without pulling the violets off... ;) 
> >
> > Today I am employed by a major energy company. Much to the chegrin of
> > local area service shops, we are COAM and do it all ourselves, from
power
> > & grounding & startup commissioning to advanced ARS. Counting me there
are
> > 4 of us on staff all with Mitel certs through LW32 rls 2 and MN3300 rls
> > 4.1, including Ops Man, ACD-2000, ISDN PRI and oh yeah, Speak@Ease. At
one
> > time we were (may still be) one of Mitel's largest "all DC powered"
> > customers (except for the new MN3300 stuff). We've been a Mitel customer
> > (and COAM) since 1985. For diversity, I also have a 300-seat Etrali
> > Etradeal turret system networked (ETSI Q.sig) to the Mitel. It's
enhanced
> > Q.sig over 4 E1 Pri's including the usual CLI/CNI plus CFwd BZ/NA reason
> > codes, MWI set/clear & transparent integration to a pair of networked
> > Octel Overture 250's.
> >
> > Mitel's 3300 VOIP system is way cool and blows the competition away.
>
> I think you need to take a good look at the competition. After, you can
> edit your above statement to:
> "Mitel's 3300 VOIP system blows."
>
> >
> >
> > In article <4QXjc.33621$Gd3.7629629@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> "John"
> > <jbrtel@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > >Perfect application for 1A2 and it still works if the power goes out.
> Free
> > >music on hold as the interrupter goes Ka-Chunk Ka-Chunk. I've still
> gotta
> > >couple of them out there horse farms and such. I didn't mind the guy
> selling
> > >the sx-200 it was the misrepresentation of its age that bothered me.
I'm
> > >sure you didn't tell the guy at the boat yard that the 551 was brand
new
> and
> > >state of the art and walk away with brand new system money in your
> pocket.
> > >Are you in Iowa, what systems do you do other than Mitel?
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 11:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <gNudnaIPNK9vIw7dRVn-iQ@comcast.com> Dan Hanson
<dannyhanson@comcast.net> writes:

>Wow... a Sales pitch on Usenet.... touting the values of 40 Year old
>TDM features. Can it do a party line too?

>Its a whole new world. Your arguments read like a Mitel sales guy
>trying to throw out any negative thing he has ever read about VOIP in
>general, and Cisco in particular. That blank stare you talked about
>will be them working to suppress laughter imagining you trying to figure
>out how to work a 40 year old solution to a 40 year old requirement,
>into a modern system.

Just one problem with your analogy. The sales droids are trying to push
customers' management in the direction of a total IP solution because
that's the only arena where their product can fully compete. The fallacy
in this is that the **END USERS** fundamentally want exactly what they
already have. New bells and whistles will be embraced only if they come
**IN ADDITION TO** present functionality. If it's a key system with
stn-to-stn intercom and an overhead paging system and a multiline common
ringer today, whatever you plan to replace it with better have that exact
same functionality or the END USER is going to criticize it and complain.
Most users couldn't care less if his phone is an "internet appliance" - he
just wants it to work the way it did before you replaced it.

This is why I say "new installations" in new facilities are prime
candidates for VOIP. Existing sites simply needing to replace aging phone
systems are going to be a tough client unless you can give 'em what they
have now in addition to whatever else your new gizmo brings to the table.

Saving money on MACS is important, but the phones have still got to be
able to do what the ones did that you're replacing them with. Until you
can achieve that, you will be losing sales to those vendors whose systems
can do it.
May 2, 2004 5:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

Also, I have run into customers who don't want to put their eggs in one
basket. Questions I have been asked: If the network goes down does the phone
system also? If my data needs increase does it affect my voice? Can someone
hack my voice capabilities through my network? What if I get a virus?
Needless to say all these customers stayed with legacy solutions also due to
the fact they would be giving up features they are accustomed to by going
Voip.

John 807
"Mitel Lurker" <wdg@[206.180.145.133]> wrote in message
news:o qf890h67bhfh7ohff9pl3t9mrlejitkt7@4ax.com...
> In article <gNudnaIPNK9vIw7dRVn-iQ@comcast.com> Dan Hanson
> <dannyhanson@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >Wow... a Sales pitch on Usenet.... touting the values of 40 Year old
> >TDM features. Can it do a party line too?
>
> >Its a whole new world. Your arguments read like a Mitel sales guy
> >trying to throw out any negative thing he has ever read about VOIP in
> >general, and Cisco in particular. That blank stare you talked about
> >will be them working to suppress laughter imagining you trying to figure
> >out how to work a 40 year old solution to a 40 year old requirement,
> >into a modern system.
>
> Just one problem with your analogy. The sales droids are trying to push
> customers' management in the direction of a total IP solution because
> that's the only arena where their product can fully compete. The fallacy
> in this is that the **END USERS** fundamentally want exactly what they
> already have. New bells and whistles will be embraced only if they come
> **IN ADDITION TO** present functionality. If it's a key system with
> stn-to-stn intercom and an overhead paging system and a multiline common
> ringer today, whatever you plan to replace it with better have that exact
> same functionality or the END USER is going to criticize it and complain.
> Most users couldn't care less if his phone is an "internet appliance" - he
> just wants it to work the way it did before you replaced it.
>
> This is why I say "new installations" in new facilities are prime
> candidates for VOIP. Existing sites simply needing to replace aging phone
> systems are going to be a tough client unless you can give 'em what they
> have now in addition to whatever else your new gizmo brings to the table.
>
> Saving money on MACS is important, but the phones have still got to be
> able to do what the ones did that you're replacing them with. Until you
> can achieve that, you will be losing sales to those vendors whose systems
> can do it.
>
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 11:26:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip,comp.dcom.sys.cisco,comp.dcom.sys.nortel (More info?)

In article <eHxlc.15267$ph.4640@fed1read07> "Arcaidy"
<Arcaidy@mailcity.commmm> writes:


> I am interested to hear about the Mitel product though. What type of costs
>are you looking at for a 100 user set up with voice mail and 2 PRI's?

Here's a LINK to the 100-user "3300" setup

http://www.mitel.com/DocController?documentId=9556&c=95...

and here's the data sheet

http://www.mitel.com/resources/data_3340_apr22.pdf

but the package only gives you analog central office trunks and IP network
trunks. Dual PRI is supported, but would be extra. LIST PRICE for the 100
user 3340 is $5500 including the software. The Universal ASU lists for
$2500. Nobody I know pays list, it's just a starting point. If you're a
dealer you know what the markups are. Voice mail licenses are $20 each
(list) and IP phone licenses are $90 each (also list).
!