Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

CCM fantasy request list...

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 10:55 AM

Post #1 of 31 (307 views)
Permalink

CCM fantasy request list...

This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...

BAT:
Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to bulk change

DRS:
FTP as an option

Lines
Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager Express)

IPCC:
Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
not dependant on AD

OS
Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive space, etc.)

Phones
Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)

We will call this just a start....

Add away...!

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

lelio at uoguelph

May 8, 2008, 11:00 AM

Post #2 of 31 (299 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

If you want Cisco to listen to you, you have to methods/avenues, CIPTUG
and/or your account team. Really, anything else is futile.

And features are committed way ahead of time.....even if you were lucky to
get forwarding secondary lines approved, it wouldn't come anytime before 8.1

Lelio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Java-Clavis-Domus Theorem: The ability to keep your hands on the home keys
is inversely
related to the amount of caffeine ingested in the last 30 minutes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>
To: "CiscosupportUpuck" <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...

> This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
> changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
> peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
> them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
> make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...
>
> BAT:
> Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
> Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to bulk
> change
>
>
> DRS:
> FTP as an option
>
> Lines
> Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
> individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
> Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager
> Express)
>
> IPCC:
> Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
> not dependant on AD
>
> OS
> Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive space,
> etc.)
>
> Phones
> Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)
>
>
> We will call this just a start....
>
> Add away...!
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

voicenoob at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:24 AM

Post #3 of 31 (298 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

DRS:
You can have security or functionality you choose.

Lines:
UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like one. If
you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.

There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX system
that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not do
paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in the
correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
third party product.

OS:
This was one of the reasons every one is so "excited" about the appliance
model. People always complained about the Windows version and how the Linux
version was going to be the best thing ever. Well once again you can have
security or functionality but not both. If you want to be able to
manipulate the OS put in the Windows version.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio[at]uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> If you want Cisco to listen to you, you have to methods/avenues, CIPTUG
> and/or your account team. Really, anything else is futile.
>
> And features are committed way ahead of time.....even if you were lucky to
> get forwarding secondary lines approved, it wouldn't come anytime before
> 8.1
>
> Lelio
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Java-Clavis-Domus Theorem: The ability to keep your hands on the home keys
> is inversely
> related to the amount of caffeine ingested in the last 30 minutes.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>
> To: "CiscosupportUpuck" <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:55 PM
> Subject: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
>
>
> > This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
> > changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
> > peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
> > them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
> > make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...
> >
> > BAT:
> > Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
> > Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to bulk
> > change
> >
> >
> > DRS:
> > FTP as an option
> >
> > Lines
> > Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
> > individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
> > Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager
> > Express)
> >
> > IPCC:
> > Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
> > not dependant on AD
> >
> > OS
> > Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive space,
> > etc.)
> >
> > Phones
> > Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)
> >
> >
> > We will call this just a start....
> >
> > Add away...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:32 AM

Post #4 of 31 (296 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

Well, a couple of things...

First off, let me choose the level of security that is appropriate for
my environment, if I want to use FTP to backup my server, it should be
my choice... I don't want to force it on anyone, I just want it to be
an option

Second, the system should meet the needs to the people who want to
implement it; not the other way around. Since we are talking about a
system that scales to be a global phone system, then we need to
support really small offices to really big ones. So, I need features
that work great in small offices and features that work in big ones.

Third, the systems we are replacing have features that CCM does not,
and telling a customer that the new, cutting edge system doesn't have
a feature they are used to having in their crappy old system is a bad
moment in the pre-sales process...

Fourth, I am not asking them to open up the entire system to everyone,
just give the partners access if we so choose.

Fifth, why do you think there will be any more WIndows versions of CallManager?

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> DRS:
> You can have security or functionality you choose.
>
> Lines:
> UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like one. If
> you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
> thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.
>
> There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX system
> that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not do
> paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in the
> correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
> third party product.
>
> OS:
> This was one of the reasons every one is so "excited" about the appliance
> model. People always complained about the Windows version and how the Linux
> version was going to be the best thing ever. Well once again you can have
> security or functionality but not both. If you want to be able to
> manipulate the OS put in the Windows version.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio[at]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> > If you want Cisco to listen to you, you have to methods/avenues, CIPTUG
> > and/or your account team. Really, anything else is futile.
> >
> > And features are committed way ahead of time.....even if you were lucky to
> > get forwarding secondary lines approved, it wouldn't come anytime before
> 8.1
> >
> > Lelio
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Java-Clavis-Domus Theorem: The ability to keep your hands on the home keys
> > is inversely
> > related to the amount of caffeine ingested in the last 30 minutes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>
> > To: "CiscosupportUpuck" <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:55 PM
> > Subject: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
> >
> >
> > > This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
> > > changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
> > > peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
> > > them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
> > > make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...
> > >
> > > BAT:
> > > Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
> > > Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to bulk
> > > change
> > >
> > >
> > > DRS:
> > > FTP as an option
> > >
> > > Lines
> > > Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
> > > individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
> > > Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager
> > > Express)
> > >
> > > IPCC:
> > > Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
> > > not dependant on AD
> > >
> > > OS
> > > Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive
> space,
> > > etc.)
> > >
> > > Phones
> > > Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)
> > >
> > >
> > > We will call this just a start....
> > >
> > > Add away...!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

ealeatherman at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:36 AM

Post #5 of 31 (296 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

I respectfully disagree..

When Cisco started out in this arena with the call manager product it was
lacking many features that traditional PBX's had for years, it still is but
getting much better because they're constantly adding features. They can't
just throw up their collective hands and say a particular feature isn't
valid, go buy another product. Now, there might be a business case or
technical reason why or why not to include something, but thats a different
story.

I have a ton (literally) of traditional PBX and hybrid systems on campus
right now that
A) Have zone paging
B) Can configure key system buttons

I don't expect CCM to do everything, but putting in feature requests etc
certainly doesn't hurt.

> Lines:
> UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like one.
> If you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
> thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.
>
> There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX system
> that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not do
> paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in the
> correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
> third party product.
>
>

--
Ed Leatherman
Senior Voice Engineer
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:42 AM

Post #6 of 31 (297 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

I am willing to bet that most (if not all) the people on this board
have thrown their lot in with Cisco. We want Cisco to succeed because
their success and ours are tied, inextricably, together.

To that end, we want Cisco's products to be the best they can be. We
never want a customer to say to us, 'your kidding, I have to give up
core feature X if I get this system???' or worse, have to buy more
hardware to do it.

I want to be in a position to never have to say, 'no that isn't
supported in the new system...' and I have a LOT of customers with
giant sites that need full-scale giant PBX features, and remote sites
that need key system functionality. The goal here is to unify the
entire enterprise voice system, which means I need to support both
large-scale and small-scale deployments on the same system.

And we do that.

But if I have a customer that wants to page through the phone (cuz
they have that feature on their legacy PBX), and they have a bunch of
remote sites, they do NOT want to have to buy 30 or 40 servers to
support that feature... It is silly to even tell them that that is
what they would need to do. It also sends the sale straight to Avaya
or Nortel.

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I respectfully disagree..
>
> When Cisco started out in this arena with the call manager product it was
> lacking many features that traditional PBX's had for years, it still is but
> getting much better because they're constantly adding features. They can't
> just throw up their collective hands and say a particular feature isn't
> valid, go buy another product. Now, there might be a business case or
> technical reason why or why not to include something, but thats a different
> story.
>
> I have a ton (literally) of traditional PBX and hybrid systems on campus
> right now that
> A) Have zone paging
> B) Can configure key system buttons
>
> I don't expect CCM to do everything, but putting in feature requests etc
> certainly doesn't hurt.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Lines:
> > UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like one.
> If you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
> thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.
> >
> > There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX system
> that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not do
> paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in the
> correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
> third party product.
> >
>
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> Senior Voice Engineer
> West Virginia University
> Telecommunications and Network Operations
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

voicenoob at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:45 AM

Post #7 of 31 (296 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

So you would choose to use less security and send your data unencrypted over
the network when an ecrypted option is availible? Seems like a poor choice
on your part.

You have two different sets of criteria and you expect the product to do
everything? If you want the small office functionality use express and
integrate it via H.323 to your larger UCCM sites.

How many features does UCCM have that their "crappy old system " does not
have?

Well for one of the reasons they shouldn't up up the OS even for partners
see my response to FTP over SFTP.

Sadly I don't think there will be any more versions on Windows. There are
versions out now on Windows so if that is the functionality you or your
customers need then you would be doing them an injustice by not giving them
the correct product.

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, a couple of things...
>
> First off, let me choose the level of security that is appropriate for
> my environment, if I want to use FTP to backup my server, it should be
> my choice... I don't want to force it on anyone, I just want it to be
> an option
>
> Second, the system should meet the needs to the people who want to
> implement it; not the other way around. Since we are talking about a
> system that scales to be a global phone system, then we need to
> support really small offices to really big ones. So, I need features
> that work great in small offices and features that work in big ones.
>
> Third, the systems we are replacing have features that CCM does not,
> and telling a customer that the new, cutting edge system doesn't have
> a feature they are used to having in their crappy old system is a bad
> moment in the pre-sales process...
>
> Fourth, I am not asking them to open up the entire system to everyone,
> just give the partners access if we so choose.
>
> Fifth, why do you think there will be any more WIndows versions of
> CallManager?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > DRS:
> > You can have security or functionality you choose.
> >
> > Lines:
> > UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like one.
> If
> > you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
> > thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.
> >
> > There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX system
> > that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not do
> > paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in
> the
> > correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
> > third party product.
> >
> > OS:
> > This was one of the reasons every one is so "excited" about the appliance
> > model. People always complained about the Windows version and how the
> Linux
> > version was going to be the best thing ever. Well once again you can have
> > security or functionality but not both. If you want to be able to
> > manipulate the OS put in the Windows version.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio[at]uoguelph.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want Cisco to listen to you, you have to methods/avenues, CIPTUG
> > > and/or your account team. Really, anything else is futile.
> > >
> > > And features are committed way ahead of time.....even if you were lucky
> to
> > > get forwarding secondary lines approved, it wouldn't come anytime
> before
> > 8.1
> > >
> > > Lelio
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> > > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> > > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Java-Clavis-Domus Theorem: The ability to keep your hands on the home
> keys
> > > is inversely
> > > related to the amount of caffeine ingested in the last 30 minutes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>
> > > To: "CiscosupportUpuck" <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:55 PM
> > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
> > >
> > >
> > > > This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
> > > > changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
> > > > peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
> > > > them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
> > > > make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...
> > > >
> > > > BAT:
> > > > Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
> > > > Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to
> bulk
> > > > change
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DRS:
> > > > FTP as an option
> > > >
> > > > Lines
> > > > Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
> > > > individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
> > > > Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager
> > > > Express)
> > > >
> > > > IPCC:
> > > > Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
> > > > not dependant on AD
> > > >
> > > > OS
> > > > Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive
> > space,
> > > > etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Phones
> > > > Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We will call this just a start....
> > > >
> > > > Add away...!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
>

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 11:52 AM

Post #8 of 31 (297 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

Yes, I would, if the customer requests it. We have found that the SFTP
backup option is unstable and unreliable. Since Cisco is unwilling to
identify and support an SFTP server for our customer's Windows
environments, then they should give us FTP as an option.

I do expect the product to do everything, much like I expect a Cisco
router to do everything, and it does. You want to run BGP to eight
ISPs, no problem, you want that same router to be a voice gateway and
terminate voice PRIs? No problem. You want that same router to have a
site-to-site VPN and perform NAT for some subnets and route for
different domains and run five different protocols? No problem.

All I ask for is the same functionality on their voice side, and I
know it is doable. The whole point of this thread was to give
CallManager the same level of functionality we already see in Cisco's
routers, switches and firewalls.

The problem with the 'hey, but it has new features!' argument is that
the customer hasn't lived with the new features, they have lived with
their old features, and to an extent has grown dependent upon them.
While they may very well grow dependent on the new features, during
the sales, design and install process, they are looking to make sure
their old features don't disappear.

I can't really comment any further on Windows and CCM (NDA).

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> So you would choose to use less security and send your data unencrypted over
> the network when an ecrypted option is availible? Seems like a poor choice
> on your part.
>
>
> You have two different sets of criteria and you expect the product to do
> everything? If you want the small office functionality use express and
> integrate it via H.323 to your larger UCCM sites.
>
> How many features does UCCM have that their "crappy old system " does not
> have?
>
> Well for one of the reasons they shouldn't up up the OS even for partners
> see my response to FTP over SFTP.
>
> Sadly I don't think there will be any more versions on Windows. There are
> versions out now on Windows so if that is the functionality you or your
> customers need then you would be doing them an injustice by not giving them
> the correct product.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, a couple of things...
> >
> > First off, let me choose the level of security that is appropriate for
> > my environment, if I want to use FTP to backup my server, it should be
> > my choice... I don't want to force it on anyone, I just want it to be
> > an option
> >
> > Second, the system should meet the needs to the people who want to
> > implement it; not the other way around. Since we are talking about a
> > system that scales to be a global phone system, then we need to
> > support really small offices to really big ones. So, I need features
> > that work great in small offices and features that work in big ones.
> >
> > Third, the systems we are replacing have features that CCM does not,
> > and telling a customer that the new, cutting edge system doesn't have
> > a feature they are used to having in their crappy old system is a bad
> > moment in the pre-sales process...
> >
> > Fourth, I am not asking them to open up the entire system to everyone,
> > just give the partners access if we so choose.
> >
> > Fifth, why do you think there will be any more WIndows versions of
> CallManager?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Voice Noob <voicenoob[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > DRS:
> > > You can have security or functionality you choose.
> > >
> > > Lines:
> > > UCCM is not a key system so don't complain about it not working like
> one. If
> > > you need a key system put in express. This product needs to scale to
> > > thousands and thousands of phones. Something a key system can not do.
> > >
> > > There are several products to accomplish paging. Again it is a PBX
> system
> > > that must scale to a very high number of devices. You know it does not
> do
> > > paging when you install it so if your customer needs that either put in
> the
> > > correct system like express or if they want paging purchase the correct
> > > third party product.
> > >
> > > OS:
> > > This was one of the reasons every one is so "excited" about the
> appliance
> > > model. People always complained about the Windows version and how the
> Linux
> > > version was going to be the best thing ever. Well once again you can
> have
> > > security or functionality but not both. If you want to be able to
> > > manipulate the OS put in the Windows version.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio[at]uoguelph.ca>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want Cisco to listen to you, you have to methods/avenues,
> CIPTUG
> > > > and/or your account team. Really, anything else is futile.
> > > >
> > > > And features are committed way ahead of time.....even if you were
> lucky to
> > > > get forwarding secondary lines approved, it wouldn't come anytime
> before
> > > 8.1
> > > >
> > > > Lelio
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> > > > Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> > > > (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > Java-Clavis-Domus Theorem: The ability to keep your hands on the home
> keys
> > > > is inversely
> > > > related to the amount of caffeine ingested in the last 30 minutes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jonathan Charles" <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>
> > > > To: "CiscosupportUpuck" <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:55 PM
> > > > Subject: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is going to be bizarre but I wanted to get a list together of
> > > > > changes we wanted to make with CCM, the things that are hyper pet
> > > > > peeves with the way CCM works, and what we all wanted to do to fix
> > > > > them... maybe we can get this list over to Cisco when complete and
> > > > > make CCM 7 our fantasy IP PBX...
> > > > >
> > > > > BAT:
> > > > > Be able to Bulk Load translation patterns
> > > > > Add checkboxes so we can manually select which devices we want to
> bulk
> > > > > change
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DRS:
> > > > > FTP as an option
> > > > >
> > > > > Lines
> > > > > Be able to put the system into Key System Mode, so I can tie an
> > > > > individual line to an individual POTS line, if desired.
> > > > > Paging through the phone (create a paging group, like in CallManager
> > > > > Express)
> > > > >
> > > > > IPCC:
> > > > > Be able to create the appadmin user as an application user so we are
> > > > > not dependant on AD
> > > > >
> > > > > OS
> > > > > Access to the OS for partners so we can fix common problems (drive
> > > space,
> > > > > etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Phones
> > > > > Be able to change phone type (from a 7941 to a 7961, etc...)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We will call this just a start....
> > > > >
> > > > > Add away...!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

rkulagow at gmail

May 8, 2008, 12:35 PM

Post #9 of 31 (289 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

Arbitrarily move a line or speed dial up or down in the DN list without
having to delete and re-add them.

And why not complain here? How long has the "Forward Secondary Lines"
feature request been known to Cisco? (Lelio?)

Because believe me, Avaya certainly knows where the "misfeatures" of CCM
are.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

bills at psu

May 8, 2008, 12:36 PM

Post #10 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

> Arbitrarily move a line or speed dial up or down in the DN list without
> having to delete and re-add them.

I thought this could be done in version 6.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

MLinsemier at apcapital

May 8, 2008, 12:43 PM

Post #11 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

I would certainly like to see a method for blocking calls based on calling
name or number in the MGCP world... I still don't know why it's only
available in H.323. Seems like it would be simple to keep a database of
these in UCM and then just disconnect calls that match the criteria.

Matt

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you
are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying
or distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither
this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor
anything else in this message is intended to constitute an
electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete
this communication from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

rsingleton at morsco

May 8, 2008, 12:54 PM

Post #12 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 13:45 -0500, Voice Noob wrote:

> So you would choose to use less security and send your data
> unencrypted over the network when an ecrypted option is availible?
> Seems like a poor choice on your part.

On my private network? Why should I complicate a backup solution that
works just because someone else wants to send theirs securely over
insecure facilities? Absolutely, they should be able to use SFTP if they
want it, the same as I should not have to if I don't.

> You have two different sets of criteria and you expect the product to
> do everything? If you want the small office functionality use express
> and integrate it via H.323 to your larger UCCM sites.

What I really have is one set of criteria that I want to scale up to my
enterprise. Why should I have to implement small systems in nearly 80
locations and integrate them all when adding a reasonable feature to
CallManger would be far more effective?

> How many features does UCCM have that their "crappy old system " does
> not have?

Lots! But the salemen in my stores don't care about extension mobility,
softphone or video conferencing. What they DO want is all-call like
their old key system had and *I* want to give them that without wiring a
dozen speakers in offices, warehouses and showrooms and telling the
manager there, ultimately responsible for the costs at his branch, that
his new $10,000 phone system can't do it.

Robert

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

trobertson at alliedmachine

May 8, 2008, 12:55 PM

Post #13 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

Being able to tell if someone is on the phone when calling them.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew
Linsemier
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:43 PM
To: Jonathan Charles; Voice Noob
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...

I would certainly like to see a method for blocking calls based on
calling
name or number in the MGCP world... I still don't know why it's only
available in H.323. Seems like it would be simple to keep a database of
these in UCM and then just disconnect calls that match the criteria.

Matt

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you
are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying
or distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither
this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor
anything else in this message is intended to constitute an
electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete
this communication from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jeff at ocjtech

May 8, 2008, 1:04 PM

Post #14 of 31 (289 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> We have found that the SFTP backup option is unstable and unreliable.

It may be unstable and unreliable using the SFTP servers that you have
tried on Windows but that hardly justifies a blanket statement like
that. My backups happen to work very well.

> All I ask for is the same functionality on their voice side, and I
> know it is doable.

It may be doable, but would implementing key system-like functionality
increase sales enough for Cisco to justify the engineering resources?

> I can't really comment any further on Windows and CCM (NDA).

And I don't especially care either.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 1:10 PM

Post #15 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

it can be done in 5

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Bill Simon <bills[at]psu.edu> wrote:
> > Arbitrarily move a line or speed dial up or down in the DN list without
> > having to delete and re-add them.
>
> I thought this could be done in version 6.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 1:27 PM

Post #16 of 31 (287 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

No, it is unstable and unreliable.

We have found a bug (that Cisco will not acknowledge), that if the
SFTP is unavilable, the DRS scheduler is disabled for 90 days. This is
ridiculous, so if the SFTP is offline (for whatever reason), then we
don't have backups for 90 days.

I think the goal should be to meet the needs of as many customers as
needed, so that you can brand the system as the only solution you will
ever need. Why do something that makes your customers mad?

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff[at]ocjtech.us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > We have found that the SFTP backup option is unstable and unreliable.
>
>
> It may be unstable and unreliable using the SFTP servers that you have
> tried on Windows but that hardly justifies a blanket statement like
> that. My backups happen to work very well.
>
>
> > All I ask for is the same functionality on their voice side, and I
> > know it is doable.
>
>
> It may be doable, but would implementing key system-like functionality
> increase sales enough for Cisco to justify the engineering resources?
>
>
> > I can't really comment any further on Windows and CCM (NDA).
>
>
> And I don't especially care either.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

pmowry at getgds

May 8, 2008, 1:31 PM

Post #17 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

The Cisco answer to this is to use CUPC on your desktop. But I see no
reason why a "call waiting on other party" message or whatever cannot be
displayed with a push to the callers phone. My cell phone does this to
let me know my wife is talking to someone and not just ignoring my call.
And so does the BCM.

------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:01 -0400
From: "Tammie Robertson" <trobertson[at]alliedmachine.com>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
To: "Matthew Linsemier" <MLinsemier[at]apcapital.com>, "Jonathan
Charles"
<jonvoip[at]gmail.com>, "Voice Noob" <voicenoob[at]gmail.com>
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
Message-ID: <2C3846EB61E6C5469F2AD4C535D94AC50C2F39[at]stormy_bu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Being able to tell if someone is on the phone when calling them.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jeff at ocjtech

May 8, 2008, 1:37 PM

Post #18 of 31 (290 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Charles <jonvoip[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> No, it is unstable and unreliable.
>
> We have found a bug (that Cisco will not acknowledge), that if the
> SFTP is unavilable, the DRS scheduler is disabled for 90 days. This is
> ridiculous, so if the SFTP is offline (for whatever reason), then we
> don't have backups for 90 days.

That's a doozie of a bug for sure - thank goodness I have a reliable
SFTP server and have never encountered this bug. But that's really
got nothing to do with FTP vs. SFTP. If CCM 5+ did backups over FTP
it'd probably have the same bug.

> I think the goal should be to meet the needs of as many customers as
> needed, so that you can brand the system as the only solution you will
> ever need. Why do something that makes your customers mad?

Well, if that's the case, then I'm really pissed off that CCM doesn't
do laundry. I mean COME ON... who likes doing laundry? I either
have to spend hours and hours doing it myself, or spend thousands of
dollars to hire someone to do it. And if you hire someone to do the
laundry for you, then you're constantly on the lookout for ICE agents.
I bet that Cisco'd make at least a couple more sales if CCM would do
laundry.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jbuchanan at ctiusa

May 8, 2008, 1:47 PM

Post #19 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

Enabling BLF for Call Lists will also give you this via the Directories.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Patrick Mowry
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:32 PM
To: cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...

The Cisco answer to this is to use CUPC on your desktop. But I see no
reason why a "call waiting on other party" message or whatever cannot be
displayed with a push to the callers phone. My cell phone does this to
let me know my wife is talking to someone and not just ignoring my call.
And so does the BCM.

------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:01 -0400
From: "Tammie Robertson" <trobertson[at]alliedmachine.com>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
To: "Matthew Linsemier" <MLinsemier[at]apcapital.com>, "Jonathan
Charles"
<jonvoip[at]gmail.com>, "Voice Noob" <voicenoob[at]gmail.com>
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
Message-ID: <2C3846EB61E6C5469F2AD4C535D94AC50C2F39[at]stormy_bu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Being able to tell if someone is on the phone when calling them.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jeff at ocjtech

May 8, 2008, 1:50 PM

Post #20 of 31 (287 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Robert <rsingleton[at]morsco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 13:45 -0500, Voice Noob wrote:
>
> > So you would choose to use less security and send your data
> > unencrypted over the network when an ecrypted option is availible?
> > Seems like a poor choice on your part.
>
> On my private network? Why should I complicate a backup solution that
> works just because someone else wants to send theirs securely over
> insecure facilities? Absolutely, they should be able to use SFTP if they
> want it, the same as I should not have to if I don't.

What I question is why you really want to keep using an unencrypted
protocol like FTP if you don't have to. I'm even starting to turn off
telnet access to my routers and switches and 99.9% of the time I'm
accessing them from a system inside my network.

> > You have two different sets of criteria and you expect the product to
> > do everything? If you want the small office functionality use express
> > and integrate it via H.323 to your larger UCCM sites.
>
> What I really have is one set of criteria that I want to scale up to my
> enterprise. Why should I have to implement small systems in nearly 80
> locations and integrate them all when adding a reasonable feature to
> CallManger would be far more effective?

Define what you mean by "reasonable". Then realize the only criteria
that matters to Cisco is the number of sales that Cisco would gain (or
not lose) by adding your feature. I can buy a Nortel 3x8 KSU for
$500:

http://norstarforless.stores.yahoo.net/noco3x8phsyw.html

And phones are between $60 and $150:

http://norstarforless.stores.yahoo.net/nonom7sete.html

I haven't priced out a CCM solution (we're a big enough shop that
other people worry about that) but I really doubt that you could get
an equivalent CCM system for the kind of money we're talking here. It
seems to me that the only way you could justify using Cisco VoIP kit
in a small office is if they are linked to a larger enterprise that
can spread the costs of the telephony system among a much larger base
of users. It would seem to me in a situation like that key
system-like functionality isn't an important selling point.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

pmowry at getgds

May 8, 2008, 1:55 PM

Post #21 of 31 (288 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

But that is a shift in the user experience. Instead of picking up the
phone and dialing the number, the user would have to goto the directory
to see if they are on the phone before placing the call in the 1st
place. Would be no problem for a Greenfield site or those comfortable
with change.

Surprisingly I have encountered one customer who felt that having the
feedback on the phone after placing the call was business critical.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Buchanan [mailto:jbuchanan[at]ctiusa.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:47 PM
To: Patrick Mowry; cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...

Enabling BLF for Call Lists will also give you this via the Directories.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Patrick Mowry
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:32 PM
To: cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...

The Cisco answer to this is to use CUPC on your desktop. But I see no
reason why a "call waiting on other party" message or whatever cannot be
displayed with a push to the callers phone. My cell phone does this to
let me know my wife is talking to someone and not just ignoring my call.
And so does the BCM.

------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:01 -0400
From: "Tammie Robertson" <trobertson[at]alliedmachine.com>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
To: "Matthew Linsemier" <MLinsemier[at]apcapital.com>, "Jonathan
Charles"
<jonvoip[at]gmail.com>, "Voice Noob" <voicenoob[at]gmail.com>
Cc: CiscosupportUpuck <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
Message-ID: <2C3846EB61E6C5469F2AD4C535D94AC50C2F39[at]stormy_bu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Being able to tell if someone is on the phone when calling them.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jonvoip at gmail

May 8, 2008, 2:21 PM

Post #22 of 31 (286 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

What I question is why my security policy should be dictated by anyone else.

And we sell Cisco to large and small because they like the product and
the single vendor solution (not having to call 9 different vendors to
troubleshoot a problem is a good thing).

Jonathan

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff[at]ocjtech.us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Robert <rsingleton[at]morsco.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 13:45 -0500, Voice Noob wrote:
> >
> > > So you would choose to use less security and send your data
> > > unencrypted over the network when an ecrypted option is availible?
> > > Seems like a poor choice on your part.
> >
> > On my private network? Why should I complicate a backup solution that
> > works just because someone else wants to send theirs securely over
> > insecure facilities? Absolutely, they should be able to use SFTP if they
> > want it, the same as I should not have to if I don't.
>
> What I question is why you really want to keep using an unencrypted
> protocol like FTP if you don't have to. I'm even starting to turn off
> telnet access to my routers and switches and 99.9% of the time I'm
> accessing them from a system inside my network.
>
>
> > > You have two different sets of criteria and you expect the product to
> > > do everything? If you want the small office functionality use express
> > > and integrate it via H.323 to your larger UCCM sites.
> >
> > What I really have is one set of criteria that I want to scale up to my
> > enterprise. Why should I have to implement small systems in nearly 80
> > locations and integrate them all when adding a reasonable feature to
> > CallManger would be far more effective?
>
> Define what you mean by "reasonable". Then realize the only criteria
> that matters to Cisco is the number of sales that Cisco would gain (or
> not lose) by adding your feature. I can buy a Nortel 3x8 KSU for
> $500:
>
> http://norstarforless.stores.yahoo.net/noco3x8phsyw.html
>
> And phones are between $60 and $150:
>
> http://norstarforless.stores.yahoo.net/nonom7sete.html
>
> I haven't priced out a CCM solution (we're a big enough shop that
> other people worry about that) but I really doubt that you could get
> an equivalent CCM system for the kind of money we're talking here. It
> seems to me that the only way you could justify using Cisco VoIP kit
> in a small office is if they are linked to a larger enterprise that
> can spread the costs of the telephony system among a much larger base
> of users. It would seem to me in a situation like that key
> system-like functionality isn't an important selling point.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

wsisk at cisco

May 8, 2008, 2:26 PM

Post #23 of 31 (287 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

I vaguely recall a CUPS integration will provide this via the phone IM
feature (IPPM).

/wes

Patrick Mowry wrote:
> But that is a shift in the user experience. Instead of picking up the
> phone and dialing the number, the user would have to goto the directory
> to see if they are on the phone before placing the call in the 1st
> place. Would be no problem for a Greenfield site or those comfortable
> with change.
>
> Surprisingly I have encountered one customer who felt that having the
> feedback on the phone after placing the call was business critical.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Buchanan [mailto:jbuchanan[at]ctiusa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:47 PM
> To: Patrick Mowry; cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
>
> Enabling BLF for Call Lists will also give you this via the Directories.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces[at]puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Patrick Mowry
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:32 PM
> To: cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
>
>
> The Cisco answer to this is to use CUPC on your desktop. But I see no
> reason why a "call waiting on other party" message or whatever cannot be
> displayed with a push to the callers phone. My cell phone does this to
> let me know my wife is talking to someone and not just ignoring my call.
> And so does the BCM.
>
> ------------------------------
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:55:01 -0400
> From: "Tammie Robertson" <trobertson[at]alliedmachine.com>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CCM fantasy request list...
> To: "Matthew Linsemier" <MLinsemier[at]apcapital.com>, "Jonathan
> Charles"
> <jonvoip[at]gmail.com>, "Voice Noob" <voicenoob[at]gmail.com>
> Cc: CiscosupportUpuck <cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net>
> Message-ID: <2C3846EB61E6C5469F2AD4C535D94AC50C2F39[at]stormy_bu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Being able to tell if someone is on the phone when calling them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip[at]puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

jsteinberg at gmail

May 8, 2008, 7:04 PM

Post #24 of 31 (278 views)
Permalink

Re: CCM fantasy request list... [In reply to]

7931 phone does a good job of emulating a key system.

check out my cool youtube video!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lh72TwOe0mM

Also, for outbound calls, check out the service parameter
'matchingcgpnwithattendantflag'. I've not actually used this parameter
before, but it's been something I've want