msaskin at gmail
Nov 4, 2009, 1:42 PM
Post #5 of 5
(96 views)
Permalink
|
Dial-in voice access to OCS is spot-on to having on-prem meetingplace or
it's equivalents
Matthew Saskin
msaskin[at]gmail.com
203-253-9571
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the dial in conferencing comparable to having meeting place in house
> on premise?
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Matt Slaga (US)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 7:40 AM
> *To:* Daniel Martin; cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Microsoft OCS versus CUCM
>
>
>
> We have both Cisco and Microsoft deployed both internally and for many of
> our customers.
>
>
>
> The client is the biggest difference between the two. When we pilot both
> CUPC and MOC, it is close to 9 out of 10 want MOC over CUPC. No disrespect
> for CUPC, but it is a version 2 product whereas Microsoft is on version 13.
> It just has more of the bells and whistles that end users are looking for
> and much deeper integration into office and sharepoint.
>
>
>
> As far as voice, most of our customers prefer to keep UCM as the call
> control engine so they can utilize QoS and CAC for only one vendor in the
> network (makes sense!). They will use RCC or CUCIMOC to achieve this and
> keep the MOC client.
>
>
>
> For some highly mobile users, we have found Microsoft Enterprise Voice
> works well. Most of these are remote users connecting over the internet so
> CAC and QoS is limited anyways.
>
>
>
> I think the key piece for Microsoft that will entice more and more buyers
> is the dial-in conferencing. Having this as part of the OCS system was a
> very strong move from Microsoft. I’ve got a list of customers that want to
> turn this on just so they can drop their current third party vendors and do
> it all in-house. Makes a strong ROI, especially for customers that have
> already purchased ECALs for OCS.
>
>
>
> If you want more info, unicast me.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Martin
> *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 10:21 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Microsoft OCS versus CUCM
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We are doing a pilot program with Microsoft to test the OCS Collaboration
> tool along with the audio codec.
>
>
>
> Is anybody using both OCS and CUCM for audio?
>
>
>
> What are the benefits of both solution or lack of which would help me
> justify one solution rather than the other?
>
>
>
> Any documents/review available on the Web to review both product’s latest
> version?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Daniel.
>
>
>
> Daniel Martin
>
> Chef de Groupe - Infrastructure Réseau et Télécom
>
> Group Leader - Network Infrastructure and Telecom
>
> CAE Inc.
>
> St-Laurent, Québec Canada
>
> H4T 1G6
>
> Tél: 1-514-341-2000 x4878
>
> Fax: 1-514-340-5489
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Disclaimer: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is for use by the designated
> addressee(s) named above only. If you are not the intended addressee, you
> are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and
> that any use or reproduction of this email or its contents is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting
> it from your computer. Thank you. *
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
|
