Dave Michels
Dave Michels is a Principal Analyst at TalkingPointz. His unique perspective on unified communications comes from a career involving telecommunications...
Read Full Bio >>

Dave Michels | November 17, 2015 |


The PBX Is Back

The PBX Is Back Who needs "UC" when you can get a PBX that is software-based, ready to integrate, multimodal, and available as a product or a service?

Who needs "UC" when you can get a PBX that is software-based, ready to integrate, multimodal, and available as a product or a service?

I've never liked the term "unified communications." I've written and spoken about this many times, like in this post from 2010. I prefer "PBX," a term, unfortunately, that frequently gets a negative visceral reaction. However, the term makes sense, and seems to be on the rise once again.

Our PBX Past
I admit that the term PBX is pretty dumb, but I didn't coin it. It stands for private branch exchange, and it goes way back -- introduced as a pull-cord switchboard probably in the '40s. If you watch "Mad Men," you may recall seeing some episodes that show switchboard girls manning the PBX.


As with most technologies, the PBX evolved. It first became mechanical, with pins, rods, and gears to eliminate the pull cords. Then the microprocessor allowed the technology to go digital. Right around the turn of the millennium, the PBX went IP, or more specifically, voice over IP -- though to me it felt redundant to replace "digital" with "IP," since IP is a digital technology.

There's a popular notion that PBX evolution stopped with VoIP, necessitating development of something new, a la unified communications. Although UC does everything the PBX did before it, the term was meant to imply more than a PBX -- much more, such as unified messaging instead of voicemail, support of SIP trunks instead of PRI/TDM trunks, and pop-up call info instead of CTI.

UC's killer app was instant messaging, which enterprise users already well understood thanks to consumer-oriented IM solutions from AOL and many others. All of these new features made it confusing if someone was talking about a super-wonder PBX or a voice-only TDM PBX. UC was an easy solution, as in: "The PBX is dead; time to buy a UC solution."

Everyone went along with the renaming -- the vendors sold UC, customers bought UC, and pundits like me explained UC. But the term itself has always been a misnomer. It has no more unified communications than did the PC make computing personal. UC has just been a convenient label to describe modern enterprise communications.

UC Isn't Everything
Here we are again, but now the evolution of UC is in question.

UC did unify a few aspects of communications, but nothing like Microsoft Outlook or even the smartphone did (neither of which are considered UC). In fact, the average enterprise employee has far more inboxes and communications tools today than in the pre-"unified" era. This is in part because communication modalities evolve more quickly than enterprise systems. Unified messaging, for example, made sense because it unified voicemails with emails, but then messaging expanded to include SMS, over-the-top apps, and social network inboxes.

Today UC is accepted to generally describe modern business communications that likely include:

  • APIs
  • Instant messaging and presence
  • Mobility
  • Telephony
  • Unified messaging
  • Video (sometimes)

But when we look at the situation today, a name change doesn't seem necessary. The PBX had already nailed telephony and voicemail, so it had to be other functions that forced the change.

Mobility? Everything has a mobile app. We didn't change CRM to "unified CRM" with the introduction of mobile clients. A mobile app is a fact of life -- even the Apple iPhone is still a phone. The concept of mobility is very important, but gets captured with terms like "mobile first," "thin client," or even just "app." There is no reason to change the term PBX for the sake of mobility.

APIs? These are important, but to some degree, the same can be said of APIs as mobility -- nothing unusual here. However, the bigger picture might suggest the UC communications-enabled business process story to be a failure. While every UC vendor has pushed APIs and SDKs, Twilio has become a billion-dollar company. APIs are here to stay, but "integrated" communications makes more sense than unified communications. "PBX APIs" also works.

As for IM, which had been a significant new capability, it seems we hit peak usage -- at least from a UC perspective. Various forms of messaging are more important than ever, but people like to IM outside their organizations. UC solutions are well suited for intra-company communications. This is one reason why inter-organizational messaging solutions such as Facebook, Google Hangouts, Slack, Skype, WhatsApp, and even Twitter are growing in popularity.

UC and video have a very tight relationship, at least on paper. Video interoperability is inexplicably easier than IM/p, yet it is common to still use separate video products and services. If you choose to use video in a UC client, that's fine too -- but then you can do so with a PBX client just as easily.

Long Live the PBX
Now let's look at some of the recent innovations in UC: contact center, wideband audio, improved conferencing solutions, cloud-delivered services, and many other mostly voice-related technologies. Can you name a recent major upgrade to UC-powered IM?

UC is really just a PBX. It evolved a bit since we renamed it in 2000, but nothing like the jump from pull cord to mechanical. The PBX is now software-based, ready to integrate, multimodal, and available as a product or a service.

The analysts won't care either way. They never stopped counting voice ports to measure market share.

Enterprises should still replace old PBXs, but with modern PBX solutions, either onsite or hosted. Where to get one? Just search for "PBX." Here is what I found:

  • 8x8: "A virtual PBX is the modern alternative to costly, clunky PBX equipment."
  • Microsoft recently introduced a Cloud PBX capability for Skype for Business.
  • Mitel offers PBX solutions.
  • NEC: Has Univerge 3C, which "delivers a fully functional IP-PBX."
  • RingCentral Office is a "virtual PBX."
  • ShoreTel promises the "easiest IP PBX phone system."

I understand that language changes. I am OK with texting someone instead of sending a text message. I'm even OK with changing "telephones" to "endpoints," even though they basically look and act the same. But it's time to upgrade "UC" back to "PBX."

To be clear, I am not saying UC is dead. I am saying it was an illusion. The PBX is alive, well, and evolving.

Dave Michels is Contributing Editor and Analyst at TalkingPointz.

Follow Dave Michels on Twitter and Google+!
Dave Michels on Google+


Enterprise Connect Orlando 2017
March 27-30 | Orlando, FL
Connect with the Entire Enterprise Communications & Collaboration Ecosystem

Stay Up-to-Date: Hear industry visionaries in Keynotes and General Sessions delivering the latest insight on UC, mobility, collaboration and cloud

Grow Your Network: Connect with the largest gathering of enterprise IT and business leaders and influencers

Learn From Industry Leaders: Attend a full range of Conference Sessions, Free Programs and Special Events

Evaluate All Your Options: Engage with 190+ of the leading equipment, software and service providers

Have Fun! Mingle with sponsors, exhibitors, attendees, guest speakers and industry players during evening receptions

Special Offer - Save $200 Off Advance Rates

Register now with code NOJITTEREB to save $200 Off Advance Rates or get a FREE Expo Pass!

March 8, 2017

Enterprise IT's ability to innovate is critical to the success of the business -- 80% of CIOs agree. But the CIO role has never been more challenging than it is today, with rising operational respo

February 22, 2017

Sick of video call technology that make participants look like they're in the witness protection program? Turns out youre not alone. Poor-quality video solutions can give users an unprofessional ap

February 7, 2017

Securing voice communications used to be very simple since it was generally a closed system. However, with unified communications (UC) you no longer have the walled protection offered by a dedicate

February 24, 2017
UC analyst Blair Pleasant sorts through the myriad cloud architectural models underlying UCaaS and CCaaS offerings, and explains why knowing the differences matter.
February 17, 2017
From the most basics of basics to the hidden gotchas, UC consultant Melissa Swartz helps demystify the complex world of SIP trunking.
February 7, 2017
UC&C consultant Kevin Kieller, a partner at enableUC, shares pointers for making the right architectural choices for your Skype for Business deployment.
February 1, 2017
Elka Popova, a Frost & Sullivan program director, shares a status report on the UCaaS market today and offers her perspective on what large enterprises need before committing to UC in the cloud.
January 26, 2017
Andrew Davis, co-founder of Wainhouse Research and chair of the Video track at Enterprise Connect 2017, sorts through the myriad cloud video service options and shares how to tell if your choice is en....
January 23, 2017
Sheila McGee-Smith, Contact Center/Customer Experience track chair for Enterprise Connect 2017, tells us what we need to know about the role cloud software is playing in contact centers today.