So are there any plans for bridged line appearance support in Asterisk? The new Linksys SPA9000 supports it. A lot of other VoIP systems from Nortel, Sylantro etc. supposedly support it. Seems to me that Asterisk needs to get on the bandwagon or be relegated to call centers, specialized voicemail applications, and phone chat businesses. It's not needed for companies used to PBX's but something like 75-95% of all companies are small businesses using key systems with BLA type behaviour not PBX behaviour. Like it or not, the mass market uses and will continue to use BLA or whatever they call it in the non VoIP world. I know that without it, Asterisk is a non-starter for most small businesses looking to replace their key systems. I am not a software developer but I remember reading a post by an asterisk developer stating that implementing it in Asterisk would be difficult but without it I think mass market appeal of Asterisk will be quite limited IMHO. There is a famous quote that states, "nothing worth doing is ever easy". Aastra just released their v1.3.1 firmware which supposedly supports the internet draft spec of BLA. The Polycom phones also supposedly support this spec so the ability IS there on the phone side. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060217/594ed45e/attachment.htm
On 2/18/06, mustardman29 <mustardman29@hotmail.com> wrote:> So are there any plans for bridged line appearance support in Asterisk? The > new Linksys SPA9000 supports it. A lot of other VoIP systems from Nortel, > Sylantro etc. supposedly support it. Seems to me that Asterisk needs to > get on the bandwagon or be relegated to call centers, specialized voicemail > applications, and phone chat businesses. It's not needed for companies used > to PBX's but something like 75-95% of all companies are small businesses > using key systems with BLA type behaviour not PBX behaviour. > > Like it or not, the mass market uses and will continue to use BLA or > whatever they call it in the non VoIP world. I know that without it, > Asterisk is a non-starter for most small businesses looking to replace their > key systems. > > I am not a software developer but I remember reading a post by an asterisk > developer stating that implementing it in Asterisk would be difficult but > without it I think mass market appeal of Asterisk will be quite limited > IMHO. There is a famous quote that states, "nothing worth doing is ever > easy". > > Aastra just released their v1.3.1 firmware which supposedly supports the > internet draft spec of BLA. The Polycom phones also supposedly support this > spec so the ability IS there on the phone side.1) Yes. There are "plans for it". 2) No. It won't be easy as Asterisk is a multi-protocol PBX and usually when we consider introducing a feature like this, its intent is for it to function across all of the protocols that Asterisk supports, VoIP or not. Everyone else you've mentioned needs only worry about their own device supporting a standard or their own system only supporting devices that they manufacture to support the feature. That makes things somewhat easier for implementation and Asterisk has no such luxury given it's completely open nature which most of us see as an advantage. 3) The other solutions you've mentioned above all have salaried engineering staffs whose job it is to implement features as decided by product management folks also employed by that company who are driven by the comments and feedback of users such as yourself who fork over large sums of money compared to what you pay for your Asterisk to have such solutions. Had you sent such an email to one of these companies at the time you did on a Friday night in the states, my bet is on the fact that it wouldn't have even solicited an initial response from a product management resource until Monday morning. 4) The SPA-9000 is devoid of features like, Voicemail, which Asterisk already has. If a system without BLA is a "non-starter" for you and these small business you have cited, why not consider a combined solution where Asterisk provides features (call queues/ACD, voicemail, etc) that the SPA-9000 does not have and then you use the SPA-9000 for what it is good for (an IP key system - which is not what Asterisk is)? Asterisk can be whatever and play whatever part you want it to play in your solution. It doesn't have to be the entire solution. Because of its open nature, it usually integrates and interoperates well with many existing products/solutions. The SPA-9000 is no exception. 5) There are thousands of small businesses already, my own being one of them, that would disagree that Asterisk is a "non starter" for them. Asterisk is what you make of it, and for us, it's a criticial communications tool for our business. These things being said, what was your original intent for writing such an email? Is there something you'd like to contribute to help get this feature implemented? You don't need to be a developer to contribute. There's testing, documentation, bounties to be set for features one "must have", and all sorts of other areas that could use the assistance of folks like yourself that aren't software developers. Thanks for your initial feedback and we look forward to your continued contributions to the Asterisk community. -- Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc. http://www.btwtech.com/
Man, I am all for shared line appearances. I have asterisk systems in several small businesses and they all cry for it. But there are ways around it as well, after a week all the bussinesses have gotten used to asterisk w/o bla. Plus, past 4 lines, its hard to implement cause lots of phones only have 4 lines. Trust me though arguing on this list wont get you the feature quicker, I have read tons of e-mails on here and have seen a pattern :) Now, I don't code C, but would like the feature for some customers. If you would be interested in forming a bounty with me, I would be possibly willing to donate some money to the bounty with you. But if you just want to complain then good luck getting this implemented quicker. Mike -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of mustardman29 Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:59 PM To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion' Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Bridged line appearance> 1) Yes. There are "plans for it".GREAT! What is the current status and expected timeline?> > 2) No. It won't be easy as Asterisk is a multi-protocol PBX and > usually when we consider introducing a feature like this, its intent > is for it to function across all of the protocols that Asterisk > supports, VoIP or not. Everyone else you've mentioned needs only worry> about their own device supporting a standard or their own system only > supporting devices that they manufacture to support the feature. That > makes things somewhat easier for implementation and Asterisk has no > such luxury given it's completely open nature which most of us see as > an advantage.Thanks for explaining the details of why it will be difficult> > 3) The other solutions you've mentioned above all have > salaried engineering staffs whose job it is to implement > features as decided by product management folks also employed > by that company who are driven by the comments and feedback > of users such as yourself who fork over large sums of money > compared to what you pay for your Asterisk to have such > solutions. Had you sent such an email to one of these > companies at the time you did on a Friday night in the > states, my bet is on the fact that it wouldn't have even > solicited an initial response from a product management > resource until Monday morning.Ummm.....ok. Asterisk=open source community. That just goes without saying. Other than that I don't know what your point is. So there are no salaried software engineers at Digium working on Asterisk?> > 4) The SPA-9000 is devoid of features like, Voicemail, which > Asterisk already has. If a system without BLA is a > "non-starter" for you and these small business you have > cited, why not consider a combined solution where Asterisk > provides features (call queues/ACD, voicemail, > etc) that the SPA-9000 does not have and then you use the > SPA-9000 for what it is good for (an IP key system - which is > not what Asterisk is)? Asterisk can be whatever and play > whatever part you want it to play in your solution. It > doesn't have to be the entire solution. > Because of its open nature, it usually integrates and > interoperates well with many existing products/solutions. The > SPA-9000 is no exception.Thanks for pointing out the differences. Yes, I have thought about creating a Frankenstein system which takes advantage of the strengths of both the SPA-9000 and Asterisk. Perhaps using Asterisk as a POT's gateway and voicemail server. The cost starts to creep up though. This is a concept I have been mulling over for awhile now. It remains to be seen what the best direction is. When in doubt the best strategy is KISS. The simplest, cheapest, and presumably most robust solution is to have everything in one box.> > 5) There are thousands of small businesses already, my own > being one of them, that would disagree that Asterisk is a > "non starter" for them. Asterisk is what you make of it, and > for us, it's a criticial communications tool for our business.At the end of the day it is what the user thinks, not the Linux people. For you, me and most others on this board I think we can all agree that Asterisk works just fine for us. For some companies used to PBX like functionality it will probably work just fine as well which I have already pointed out. For many many other companies used to key system like functionality it is a non-starter mostly because of the lack of BLA IMHO. If you don't believe me that it is a VERY important feature then ask yourself why a LOT of IP phones and VoIP systems support it or are starting to support it. If Asterisk wants to be a main stream phone system then I feel it should support it. Has nothing to do with open source vs proprietary. Just giving my opinion based on user feedback.> > These things being said, what was your original intent for > writing such an email? Is there something you'd like to > contribute to help get this feature implemented? You don't > need to be a developer to contribute. There's testing, > documentation, bounties to be set for features one "must > have", and all sorts of other areas that could use the > assistance of folks like yourself that aren't software developers.Sure, what is the development schedule? I get your point. No need to beat me over the head with it. I read these sorts of comments about how it's "your fault for not being a software coder" and "if you don't like it too bad, it's your fault for not getting more involved" and frankly I am sick of it. We all know this is open source, we mostly all know the advantages and disadvantages of it and we would not be here if we didn't want it to work. Let's just move on. I am sorry for not being able to code. I am sorry I am not contributing as much as I should. It's my fault this feature is not getting off the ground. There are you happy? Can we move on now?> > Thanks for your initial feedback and we look forward to your > continued contributions to the Asterisk community. > > -- > Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc. > http://www.btwtech.com/ > >_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users This E-mail, including any attachments, may be intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the sender and recipient(s) named above. This message may include advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material and, as such, would be privileged and confidential and not a public document. Pursuant to 42 CFR, any information in this e-mail identifying a former, present, or potential client of Straight & Narrow is confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error, you must not review, transmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it and you must delete this message. You are requested to notify the sender by return e-mail.
You make some good points Clint, I honestly don't think that trying to force feed this to the customer as it is is the way to go. Key systems have been used for many many years and the market has decided that they are what people want in the lower end. I have sat in small offices and witnessed the elegant simplicity of a key system. It's all 1 single button press to do ANYTHING. The button label and the light beside it tells you everything you need to know. It works! No multi button sequences or *xx key presses to know. People on this forum might not have a problem with more complexity in exchange for more flexibility etc. but I don't think the people on this forum are anything like an average user. Perhaps Asterisk will never be appropriate for they low end Key market or the Key/PBX hybrid market. I don't know. There are IP phones around with plenty of buttons to do the job. The Aastra9133i has something like 9 programmable buttons in addition to 3 incoming line buttons which is plenty for most small businesses. Their latest firmware now fully supports BLF and apparently SLA. Did I come across as complaining? Just trying to make a case for what I see as a highly desireable feature. I do take exception to anyone trying paint a picture of me being an ungrateful open source software user looking for a free ride. Digium has made PLENTY of money off of me. If I could pay another $300 to get the features I want I would. It's not all about saving a few bucks! If I wanted to do that I would buy Bizfon's.> -----Original Message----- > From: Clint Sharp [mailto:clint@kirkhamsystems.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:20 PM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Bridged line appearance > > I'm having a very hard time justifying trying to sell this to the SOHO > market on price or parity with key systems. I've installed key > systems and large scale PBXs, and while working around the SLA problem > isn't that hard, the price point for a key system is very hard to > compete with. I've never understood why people would want to use an > SLA system, honestly, as it's a really poor model. I hate sitting in > offices with constant paging "Call for blah, line 1". The PBX model > to me is much more preferable, and working around it is simply a > training problem. > > The problem with asterisk isn't the lack of SLA, it's the price point. > It's going to be very hard for IP phone vendors to compete on price at > this point, and so far the quality issues in low-priced hardware to me > means I can't really sell this to anyone who's not willing to pay > $200-$300 a phone (retail). > > Not that it's impossible, it's a different sales strategy. > Perhaps people who are wanting to sell this to the SOHO market should > attempt to change the game, as PBX like functionality doesn't exist in > the SOHO market because it hasn't been affordable previously. > Asterisk systems are pretty cheap in terms of the features they offer, > such that the sales pitch really depends on cost for features and > maintenance and infrastructure savings rather than overall cost. > > Admittedly though, the voicemail system's navigation issues are a big > problem. > > Clint > > > On 2/18/06, John Novack <jnovack@stromberg-carlson.org> wrote: > > > Many very low cost hybrid key/pbx systems for the small businessSOHO> market have 12 or more programmable buttons, so regardless of whatis> done with Asterisk, until the IP phone manufacturers take off their > blinders and manufacture competing equipment, this market will beout> of > reach. These same systems now have voice mail systems with > capabilities > and features that make Comedian Mail the correct name. > Asterisk isn't > alone regarding these shortfalls, of course. IP phone system > designers > have failed to understand the small business market for several > years. > > Defensive responses with lengthy explanations why it can't be done,> or > why it hasn't been done and will be difficult miss the point. Either > Asterisk needs to change to move into this market, or anotherproduct> will > > JMO > > John Novack > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > <http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users> > > > > >
Adam Robins wrote:>Hi Adam> After many days of playing with the new jitterbuffer and trunking options for IAX2, I have finally received almost acceptable quality. I am receiving 5-8 complaints a day of calls "breaking up" from both the customer and agent sides. What I have discovered is that in most of these cases, the new jitterbuffer performed a resync during the call. Currently, I have the resyncthreshold, and all other jb parameters at their default levels The traffic is running over a fairly high latency WAN connection between Canada and Atlanta (IAX2, ILBC). Idle ping times run about 85ms. >I am interested to know why you are using ilbc, n why not g729 ot g723 or speex. What is the size of the WAN connection. How many calls are you running over this link. I just need to see how others are fairing with IAX2 over WAN links, as I am the final stages of testing on my side thanks, yusuf