Recently in voip Category

An interesting discussion on one of the lists started as VoIP Redundancy for ITSP's and quickly went on tangents. One tangent here hits the nail on the head:

I think the hardest part of this is that a modern business switching from traditional to VOIP is usually used to completely segregated networks. I know I at least always prefer deploying VOIP on completely separate infrastructure as much as possible, but the selling point of cost savings usually overrides this. The effect of this is that now what happens on a company's existing data network (or has already been happening for some time) can now effect voice quality and reliability, but the blame and burden of proof still comes back to the VOIP provider. This has repeatedly been the most common issue I have seen in deployments of business VOIP, especially hosted. It also shows how many companies have people running their networks that really have little to no idea of what they are doing."

"This is also exactly why the bulk retail residential VOIP providers put such little emphasis on their support, since they know it is a losing battle especially in today's reality of shared access MSOs and oversubscribed DSL providers. And that is before they actively block or shape the competition."

Many VoIP Providers don't even take this into account.

FierceVoIP has a headline: Carrier IP Telephony Market off 14% in 2009.

Analyst firm Dell'Oro Group sees the carrier IP Telephony market breaking out of its current slump in 2010, according to a recent report. While the group said the carrier IP telephony market in 2009 will be down around 14 percent from 2008, Dell'Oro expects the market to rebound to $4 billion by 2013.

There are a lot of VoIP Phones on the market. Which one do you want? Here's some of the sites that have reviewed the latest models:

FreedomIQ has reviews of the Cisco WIP310 and the entire line of Polycom standard IP Phones. 

The Aastra 610d is reviewed by .e4 technology.

Obviously, Tom Keating here at TMC reviews VoIP gear.

Garrett Smith reviews VoIP gear for VoIP Supply.

After Google Voice was rejected by the Apple iPhone store, the new FCC - Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Commissioners Michael Copps, Robert McDowell, Mignon Clyburn, and Meredith Attwell Baker - was prodded into action by Google. The FCC sent a letter to Apple about the GV Rejection. (Read it here). The Letter (DA No. 09-1737) has nine very specific questions to be answered by Apple and AT&T by August 21.

The New FCC also sent a Letter (DA No. 09-1739) to Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application.  The questions are not nearly as pointed but are specific. It seems the New FCC wants to make certain that VoIP isn't excluded from handsets. It also seems like the New FCC wants other "carriers" to have a fair shot at the cellular network. (It's our spectrun after all; the carriers are just leasing it).

This makes me think that FreedomVoice should complain about their Newber app that was stalled in the iPhone store process as well.

The deal that was supposed to save VOX Corp. (parent company is Pervasip). After Networld World questioned whether the mobile VoIP service could actually work, the company stripped data from its website (as reported by both PC World and Network World).

PC World further reported, "Earlier this week IDG News Service reported that it's unlikely that Zer01 could be technically able to offer the unlimited mobile voice and data service that it is advertising. The service, originally targeted for a July 1 launch, does not appear to be available yet. In addition, it's being marketed through a multilevel marketing program run by a company called Global Verge whose founder, Mark Petschel, in 2005 pleaded guilty to securities fraud. Petschel is currently on probation."

The other issue being raised is that the MLM program has more questions than answers. When Lightyear is selling cellular via MLM, you at least have a very clear picture of who the parent company is and other company transparencies. That is not the case with the Zer01 MLM program. Again PC World, "It's not the only related Web site that has changed since the original report on Monday. The Web site for UTG no longer features executive bios, company addresses, some previously provided telephone numbers or links to related companies such as Yorkshire Investments or the Yorkshire Foundation."  And it goes on and on with PC World checking up on UTG facts. The Consumerist has a diagram of the MLM program.

Even Engadget points out that Zer01 will be undercutting its own MVNO partner - a losing strategy if ever there was one - and using VoIP on AT&T's 3G network, that has already seen issues from too much iPhone traffic, let alone VoIP calls streaming and tunnelling through its network.

Jaduka and StrikeIron announce partnership. Millions of NetBeans, IBM and SalesForce developers can now add voice to their apps in minutes. Here's Thomas Howe's announcement post. Here's StrikeIron's blog post. The press release is here.

In a short article in INC magazine, one entrepreneur explains how he uses Google Voice for his startup business. He is a straddler - he has a full-time job while launching his own business. 

As noted by Ring Central, many of the features in Google Voice have been available for a while from VoIP Providers. However, it's partially the brand (it's Google) and partially the price (um, free). Once Google allows number portability, it will be tough to beat. Why?

For one thing, Raving Fans. Google has a lot of Raving Fans. And those fans tell stories about the service - even better than a testimonial. Who is your storyteller?

For another, easy explanations about what each feature is on the product page, the help pages, and on fan pages. Could your Grandmother understand what youare offering?

Another would be the brand. Most VoIP Providers don't do much marketing, even less branding. The only exception is Vonage. The other might be 8x8. Do the businesses in your local Chamber of Commerce recognize your company name (or product name)?

What are you doing to counter these factors?

While speaking at the FISPA meeting this week, I kind of focused on sales and marketing. Why? Mainly the E-Myth. Most of the ISP owners are technical but are very uncomfortable talking about business, marketing and especially sales. One point that is important is that ISP's are NOT selling Internet Access. ISP's are selling reliable, dependable high-speed access to Facebook, YouTube and the rest of the websites and Web Apps that people desire to use. SAAS and VoIP means that ISP's need to be cognizant of the fact that if you keep selling Internet Access you will relegated to a dumb pipe. Instead, you should be offering not just the access but also some of those Apps. (That's what the RBOC's want to do).

ITSP's are NOT selling replacement phone service. They are selling business productivity and efficiency through a new, reliable and redundant platform for voice service. It's NOT about saving someone 10% -- it is about understanding how the business uses the phone (and other communications services) to interact with prospects, customers, and employees.

Google Voice is now going public. Luckily, for some providers Google announced that it will charge for enterprise and premium users. At the FISPA meeting, IKANO (Disclaimer: I rep IKANO's Google Apps for ISP's) presented the concept of ISP's moving their email service to Google. This was at the tail end of a CLEC session where the discussion centered around becoming a CLEC is about controlling your destiny and your services. Well, outsourcing your email - still the killer app for users - for an ISP is tantamount to losing control. And the fact that Google - IKANO's partner for email - is launching Google Voice is just one more reason that the ISP's will say No to Google Apps. They see Google as the new AT&T.

Expanding network into Charlotte and Raleigh was just the start of expansion for  XO in 2009.  

XO's been adding even more services to its too-big catalog lately. (I say too big because even XO sales folks don't remember half of what they sell or can brief prospects on more than a handful). The catalog is RBOC sized including Hosting, wireless, IP, VoIP, PBX, SIP trunks, transport, collocation, TDM, Ethernet, and Managed Services.

Oh, I forgot wavelength services too.  And in a deal with Pacific Crossing, XO extends its reach to the Asia.

XO is back to pushing Fixed Wireless that it relegated to the old Nextlink brand.  It was mentioned recently when XO announced that it was adding new speeds to its Hatteras based mid-band Ethernet service.

XO is also pushing Concentric, its hosting brand, with the announcement of a Managed Backup Service.  According to Phone+ magazine, the service will be sold via a new VAR Channel Program (as well as current XO Business Partners).

Beyond transport, XO added Hosted IVR, labeled as an Inbound Teleservice, and XO Connect, which is a mass notification service. I guess, they are taking lessons from Ifbyphone to use SIP to do more than make cheap calls.

And finally XO has an agreement to extend VoIP to 2800 LSO's in the US. That deal apparently also includes transport and transit to 2800 rate centers.

That's a lot of expansion once the heavy debt was lifted.

Tech Data's Senior Product Sales Champion for UC was at the event last night. I spent a few minutes chatting with him about his position, but couldn't really get a definition of UC out of him. Polycom and tele-presence are what he pushes - to me that's not really UC. HD Voice? No we leave that up to Polycom and the vendors. Seems even a tech company has a problem wrapping the head around Unified Communications. (UC doesn't mean the latest gadgets).

XO has some components to build a UC bundle - overlay IVR, Broadsoft SIP Trunking, some straight forward Hosted PBX (with a limited feature set), and Hosted Exchange for the email integration piece.

If the UC Champion thinks UC is tele-presence and video conferencing, what does that say about well defined the term is in the Industry?