one side recorded calls with oreka
-
@Dashrender said:
For example, Let's assume I use my ISP for internet, hosting my public website, phone service, cable TV, and DNS hosting (public DNS). Why is this so horrible?
- Cost. In the real world, this always costs more. Often a lot more.
- Risk. If your ISP fails or goes out of business or decided that you are too costly to keep as a customer or you decide that they are too expensive to pay.... you not only lose your Internet access, but you lose customer facing services there too! This is enormous risk. Potentially company crippling risk.
- Locational Risk. So big it gets its own risk bullet point. When you are beholden to your ISP for services you can't move to another location potentially. You are tied to the ISP physically. You are creating a massive type of risk that the Internet should have freed you from. It is basically a misunderstanding of the core ideas of a public Internet. If you avoid bundling ephemeral services with a physical line you have this concept of mobility. Mobility for moving to better service. Mobility for moving to a better location. Mobility to move to another provider should one fail.
- Quality. While an ISP "could" provide these services well, the real world results are that they do not. These are not their business or money making services and the best email, web, DNS, VoiP and other companies will always be those available to everyone, not those restricted to just local, physical customers. This is just a general matter of how markets work. Just like the best coffee will never be the free coffee in the local auto garage for customers in the waiting room, the best VoIP will never be the tack on from the ISP. Same concept. It's not what they do, it's not what they care about.
- Extortion. When your ISP not only owns your access to the world but also your presentation to it they know, and you know, that they can often raise rates, threaten, and screw you however they see fit because the choice to be extortable was completely yours.
- Billing. To you, a single bill "sounds nice." To me it sounds like an inability to dispute. What if your phone company, that is also your ISP, decides to bill you for $10,000 of calls you don't think that you made (this really happens, I can tell you an ISP that tried this with us!!) If you have mixed services, and you refuse to pay the bill, they can AND WILL turn off your email, websites, physical Internet access, etc. A single bill for critical services is a scary, scary thing.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
the matter is the core business in our company rely on phone calls, kind of call center, so the management believe that relying on staff to manage something crucial is risky, so they delegate this to our ISP, so that they can feel safe because the guaranty that they offer to ensure a better VOIP service is more than i can offer,
Problems:
- Relying on management that makes reckless decisions based on not understanding the problem domain. The risk here is the managers as they are creating risk by be willing to make decisions based on things they clearly have no knowledge of. That's the most dangerous possible thing.
- Delegating to the ISP alone should be a huge flag. This means management not only doesn't understand IT but doesn't understand basics of business or management.
- The ISP has no particular skills to do this. They aren't even running a minimally enterprise PBX, it would seem.
- Management sought to only delegate SOME of the VoIP to the ISP and not all of it, leaving you with more of a mess than if they had let you run it yourself.
- This argument is fundamentally nonsensical because YOU running a PBX and the ISP running one are hardly the only options. Neither is even the obvious option. It sounds like they ruled out everything that would make business sense so that they could justify a horrible decision by only considering another bad option. This sounds like someone in management is getting a kickback from the ISP.
- If your telephones were truly crucial, the ISP is the last reasonable option. So the reason given by management don't match the reality.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
especially we had a previous bad experience on having a voip server on premise (low bandwidth, VPN between 2 remote location ....) we end up having it hosted on our ISP, (between us i'm happy that they do that, lol)
Why is on premises considered the alternative to having the ISP do it? These are not either/or options.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
i can drink my cup of tea and our ISP take charge of our voip service
Why are you happy that it is the ISP doing this, instead of a competent VoIP vendor?
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
the only matter that i have now is how to record the shit calls, i will tried to move to linux and get thing to work
This is a big matter since it is more effort than if you were running the PBX yourself. This undermines all of the value of having someone handle the VoIP for you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why are you happy that it is the ISP doing this, instead of a competent VoIP vendor?
because here in qatar there is only one internet service provider,
you will say to me why you don't subscribe with a voip provider in another country, i will response by saying that the management want real DID (i mean a phone number that resemble the normal phone numbers of qatar 8 digit), a foreign VOIP provider will provide you with virtual DID, also we will have both internet and voip on the same line, in opposition to what we have now, we have a dedicated internet line and a dedicated trunk line for voip -
@scottalanmiller said:
This is a big matter since it is more effort than if you were running the PBX yourself. This undermines all of the value of having someone handle the VoIP for you.
not big matter at all, because what i need is only record calls, and i was doing it successfully for a couple of days ago but because of some reasons the recording server stop record the full call, it record only the internal part of the call, and there are other software that do recording without any issue (i tried them) but they are not free,
now i'm trying to fix the bug in this free software by compiling the last version, if it dosn't work we will buy that commercial software (the last option) -
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why are you happy that it is the ISP doing this, instead of a competent VoIP vendor?
because here in qatar there is only one internet service provider,
you will say to me why you don't subscribe with a voip provider in another country, i will response by saying that the management want real DID (i mean a phone number that resemble the normal phone numbers of qatar 8 digit), a foreign VOIP provider will provide you with virtual DID, also we will have both internet and voip on the same line, in opposition to what we have now, we have a dedicated internet line and a dedicated trunk line for voipWhat is the difference between a real DID and a virtual DID? How can one tell a "real" from a "virtual" phone number?
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
because here in qatar there is only one internet service provider,
There is no ability to have failover at all? This precludes all business class services at a national level.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What is the difference between a real DID and a virtual DID? How can one tell a "real" from a "virtual" phone number?
i mean by real number: a phone number that has a format similar to the phone number format provided by the telephone company (ex : 44552233)
and the virtual number is a weird phone number that differ from the local phone number in terms of how much digits, first extention ...... -
@scottalanmiller said:
What is the difference between a real DID and a virtual DID? How can one tell a "real" from a "virtual" phone number?
yes there is only one ISP in qatar (landline not wireless), we have vodafone but they provide only 4G wireless internet connection, as for wired internet connection only one company (the government)
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What is the difference between a real DID and a virtual DID? How can one tell a "real" from a "virtual" phone number?
yes there is only one ISP in qatar (landline not wireless), we have vodafone but they provide only 4G wireless internet connection, as for wired internet connection only one company (the government)
That's awful. If it was the government acting as a government and not as a company it would be one thing. But to actually shut out telephony vendors and others, that's just a government owned monopoly.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
What is the difference between a real DID and a virtual DID? How can one tell a "real" from a "virtual" phone number?
i mean by real number: a phone number that has a format similar to the phone number format provided by the telephone company (ex : 44552233)
and the virtual number is a weird phone number that differ from the local phone number in terms of how much digits, first extention ......Oh, refer to the one as a DID and the other as an extension. That's not a virtual DID or anything of the sort. It's literally just an extension.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's awful. If it was the government acting as a government and not as a company it would be one thing. But to actually shut out telephony vendors and others, that's just a government owned monopoly.
That's how we used to be. Privatizing the whole of Telstra was the worst move imaginable.
It's not awful if the level of service is good. A 'Free/open Market" does NOT suit every country instantly as it has social requirements that not every country/culture has in place.
Ā
While tech changes seemingly by the month, it can take years if not decades to set in place an "open" market.
Ā
They may not have had a national level communications disaster yet & as such know nothing of national level critical failures.
-or-
Alternatively, they might have some kind of national level disaster mitigation strategy that we know nothing about. It's not our place to judge their business strategies as we are not privy to that information. -
@nadnerB said:
That's how we used to be. Privatizing the whole of Telstra was the worst move imaginable.
It's not awful if the level of service is good. A 'Free/open Market" does NOT suit every country instantly as it has social requirements that not every country/culture has in place.I actually believe that the government should own all necessarily monopolistic systems, ISPs being one of them (although link redundancy is still a necessity.) The problem comes from blocking products and services that have no reason to be this way. Had the government simply not stopped it, VoIP services would be competitive and available to the OP. The government is actively blocking functioning services from being available in the country that would have been cheap and already available with less effort.
I totally agree that privatization does not always make sense. But there is a big difference between blocking access to existing services and making things a monopoly that have no reason to be.
-
@nadnerB said:
They may not have had a national level communications disaster yet & as such know nothing of national level critical failures.
They have. Whole country went dark a few years ago when a cable in Egypt was cut.
-
@nadnerB said:
Alternatively, they might have some kind of national level disaster mitigation strategy that we know nothing about. It's not our place to judge their business strategies as we are not privy to that information.
Well, it is our place, as it is part of determining how and when you do business or what type of business with the country. Having the government behave as a Comcast, for example, means that datacenters and datacenter service companies avoid the country and go to other countries entirely for services. It means that critical support systems and banking goes to another country because needed redundancy and expertise is not available. If you are in IT, then the infrastructure and decisions of a country are very much something you have to consider.
