Phone systems (another quick rant!)
Sep/18/2008 16:56 Filed in: Work
In every job I've held doing computer support or
systems/network administration of some type, it's
inevitable that one of the duties is handed over to
me that's really not "computer related" at all.
That would be taking care of the phone system!
Now, at first glance, it might APPEAR that the phone system and the computer systems have a lot in common. They're both on "networks" of sorts, and modern office phone systems are essentially run by a computer "brain" on the back end anyway. But I've come to realize that the two exist in two VERY different worlds. The "telecommunications" experts try very hard to maintain a separation between their field and that of the I.T. worker!
Typically, you can expect places where technologies overlap to use different terminology, wherever possible, to confuse someone specializing in the other field. Take IP addresses. Every computer person is pretty familiar, by now, with the concept of assigning unique IP addresses (in the x.x.x.x format) to devices on the network. Well, our Inter-Tel phone system also addresses digital phones on its network in a similar manner. So logically, they'd use IP addresses there too, right? Wrong! They insist on using some obscure xx:yy-yy-yy assignment for each phone instead!
Additionally, phone system manufacturers always seem to resist change. Despite seeing computer technology progressing and evolving rapidly, phone system technology seems to evolve at a relative snail's pace. Unless you keep an existing system in place for a good 10 years or so, you won't find an upgrade from a given manufacturer will really give you a whole lot of new technology at all. (That doesn't seem to stop the resellers from calling constantly, trying to sell you an upgrade, though!) To hear the telecom folks talk about it, this is a GOOD thing, because they like to stick with "proven, reliable" solutions. Fine, except I.T. people are aware of what hardware you're selling in that fancy box - and we question why it should still cost $15,000 or more for systems still using a dial-up modem as the only way to remotely program it, and why backups are STILL being done on floppy disks. Furthermore, your lack of knowledge of newer technologies shouldn't lead you to keep touting old, outdated options as "good" and "still viable"!
I still can't get our new phone system to properly email a copy of a voicemail message to a user, despite its claim it uses simple SMTP standards for sending mail. As far as I can tell, it's simply not even trying to send anything out at all. This is despite our salesperson promising us that the new, improved voicemail to email capabilities were one of the big plusses of upgrading to this particular line of products! Just from viewing the phone system's internal logs, it's clear that email was NOT much of a priority for the developers. Things related to the dialing and transferring of phone extensions are logged extensively, as are all manner of small errors (unplugging a phone and reconnecting it, for example). But email? It gets a couple lines in a log claiming it compressed up a file to send, and "sent" it to a given username. No record of the handshaking that went on during the mail transfer or anything.
Now, at first glance, it might APPEAR that the phone system and the computer systems have a lot in common. They're both on "networks" of sorts, and modern office phone systems are essentially run by a computer "brain" on the back end anyway. But I've come to realize that the two exist in two VERY different worlds. The "telecommunications" experts try very hard to maintain a separation between their field and that of the I.T. worker!
Typically, you can expect places where technologies overlap to use different terminology, wherever possible, to confuse someone specializing in the other field. Take IP addresses. Every computer person is pretty familiar, by now, with the concept of assigning unique IP addresses (in the x.x.x.x format) to devices on the network. Well, our Inter-Tel phone system also addresses digital phones on its network in a similar manner. So logically, they'd use IP addresses there too, right? Wrong! They insist on using some obscure xx:yy-yy-yy assignment for each phone instead!
Additionally, phone system manufacturers always seem to resist change. Despite seeing computer technology progressing and evolving rapidly, phone system technology seems to evolve at a relative snail's pace. Unless you keep an existing system in place for a good 10 years or so, you won't find an upgrade from a given manufacturer will really give you a whole lot of new technology at all. (That doesn't seem to stop the resellers from calling constantly, trying to sell you an upgrade, though!) To hear the telecom folks talk about it, this is a GOOD thing, because they like to stick with "proven, reliable" solutions. Fine, except I.T. people are aware of what hardware you're selling in that fancy box - and we question why it should still cost $15,000 or more for systems still using a dial-up modem as the only way to remotely program it, and why backups are STILL being done on floppy disks. Furthermore, your lack of knowledge of newer technologies shouldn't lead you to keep touting old, outdated options as "good" and "still viable"!
I still can't get our new phone system to properly email a copy of a voicemail message to a user, despite its claim it uses simple SMTP standards for sending mail. As far as I can tell, it's simply not even trying to send anything out at all. This is despite our salesperson promising us that the new, improved voicemail to email capabilities were one of the big plusses of upgrading to this particular line of products! Just from viewing the phone system's internal logs, it's clear that email was NOT much of a priority for the developers. Things related to the dialing and transferring of phone extensions are logged extensively, as are all manner of small errors (unplugging a phone and reconnecting it, for example). But email? It gets a couple lines in a log claiming it compressed up a file to send, and "sent" it to a given username. No record of the handshaking that went on during the mail transfer or anything.