Matt Brunk
Matt Brunk has worked in past roles as director of IT for a multisite health care firm; president of Telecomworx,...
Read Full Bio >>

Matt Brunk | December 03, 2010 |


Lync: Don't Tread On My PBX!

Lync: Don't Tread On My PBX! Does Lync give you the Jitters?

Does Lync give you the Jitters?

Surly posters hold off and count to ten. While you're counting down, reflect on these:

10. The PBX isn’t dead (yet) because it's not a Microsoft invention
9. While Large enterprise PBXs may evolve to the data center as "just an Application," the rest of the world runs on "it just keeps working" PBXs
8. PBXs don't need Microsoft for their UC needs
7. Where there’s open source there’s "Open UC" too
6. How many IT people does it take to glue Lync back together again?
5. Federated Lync means what--vulnerabilities from right angles?
4. Can you get Lync to Synch?
3. Don’t touch my iPhone bro!
2. Is Lync Troubleshooting 101 going to be another "Power Point" presentation? (How long, how complex?)
1. How many Microsoft licenses are required for 1 Lync Client?
0. Reboot baby, reboot

Lync doesn't cut it for me but why should it? We service the SMBs and I don't foresee total disruption to the food line other than rogue IT guys that want to make some easy opportunity bucks selling hosted Lync. Why are hosted voice providers failing the grade? (Hint: Ask Gary Audin)

Contrarian wrote an interesting piece over at his blog here. I’ve written numerous times about "open" saying the same thing: "How open i's 'open'"? Then for PROPRIETARY arguments, I've raised plenty of concern there too--but the reality is those old saws about IP bringing us new, open, non-proprietary solutions consist of some overblown marketing--just look at SIP. Better yet, look at Microsoft Lync and then use the word "standard" in the same sentence. You can’t say I’m having a bad hair day because it’s falling out. However, can you say, "Lync is not PROPRIETARY?"

For over a decade (I’m counting) I've heard from IT head bangers that "the PBX is dead" or "TDM is dead" or "We’re taking over everything." No, no and no you're not. The disparity between IT folks and old voice dogs is pretty simple. Here's a quick review:

* Customers ask the IT folks when they're coming back from lunch; those same customers ask the voice folks to join them for lunch

* Voice people entering a customer establishment announce themselves and the customers respond: "Would you like some coffee?" IT folks arrive and customers immediately say, "How long are we going to be down?"

* The telephone man song came long before the Internet man song--- and the telephone man song is still cooler, sexier and everyone knows that

So that doesn't win me any new IT pals on Facebook, so come up with your own. Now while I'm seemingly "cruising for a bruising" from NoJitter readers, let me share some other trinkets:

* Lync is desktop centric and PBXs are phone centric; how about mobility?

* What's wrong with having un-converged voice and data applications?

* What is the value of deploying Lync and what are the risks and their costs? When your data is out of service what does it cost your company? When your voice is disrupted and/or out of service, what does it cost your company?

* How many CALs make up one Lync license? (Hint: Ask Robin Gareiss)

* How many IT guys does it take to plug in a phone to Lync and keep it working?

I don't doubt that Lync works. The responses to my last post and follow up remarks indicate that a well planned, executed and architected Lync shouldn’t have any problems. What about quality and user experience? Then what about the costs of delivering Lync in that well planned, executed and architected bundle? Maybe you need to pause and reevaluate your data center--(Hint: Ask Tom Nolle)

Still, I know that we will face off competitors on a few deals sooner or later. I agree to the benefits of merging and converging voice into the data center and that having resiliency is imperative, as is being able to "federate" or openly exchange packets. Is it the same thing as saying, "we're running open and on standards?" I don't think it is with Lync. For me, I think relational database with lots of oil and no walls between information. So how much of a reality is federation? You can federate so long as it's Microsoft? If the answer is somewhere in between, then it doesn’t seem that Lync is differentiating itself. If the federation is really slick and with merit then pretty much anything with "open and standards" should work with Lync, right? However, keeping it simple may not be in the Lync architecture but my guess is it’s simpler than Cisco’s; but listening to Cisco--Microsoft's solution is just too immature. Aside from some of my antics, does Lync give you the Jitters?


May 11, 2016
Companies are increasingly migrating from premises-based telephony to cloud-based, whether to achieve greater scale, boost flexibility, or cut costs. Even those businesses that are choosing to stay wi...
April 27, 2016
Today's business conditions are forcing organizations to find dynamic and flexible communications solutions that can unify co-workers and deliver actionable metrics to solve the issues that matter mos...
April 13, 2016
Skype for Business promises simplicity and ROI for your UC deployment. However, success requires much more than just a great product. It requires careful consideration of your existing environment, lo...