There's been more discussion about the demise of the desktop telephone for various reasons. Maybe the reasons are valid, but are they touching on all verticals? And do all verticals understand the relevance of desktop phones? Do they see value in doing things differently?
My recent visit to a resort area in western Maryland was challenging, as I was replacing a system that was installed in 1994. Needed upgrades to the cabling that was originally installed by a now-defunct Interconnect were provided by adding low voltage protectors on the two pairs of each wire. The first pair protector, designed for analog (2500 devices) and the second pair used for digital proprietary telephones, were fused and grounded with protectors to prevent damage from static discharge. But this wasn't the only barrier the general manager was facing.
We successfully replaced the PBX and made it a clean cutover, but all room phones were replaced with digital proprietary telephones. Now the IT side of me says, "it's a temporary solution" and then the Telecom side of me says, "it worked for 20 years before, so why not another 20 years?"
Whether or not you care about the reasons why digital proprietary phones are still sold (or even why PBXs are still sold) doesn't matter – because they are. For this particular customer I will note the reasons here:
• There are only two pairs of wire*
• The customer wants a telephone in every guest room
• Internet service available does not warrant SIP trunking*
• Infrastructure between buildings does not currently support a viable network*
Note * - these reasons can be remedied.
Adtran ActiveReach or Phybridge UniPhyer will potentially support IP solutions over these two pairs of wire. I write "potentially" because the cabling is old "JK" wiring that is not "twisted pair" telephone wiring but wiring used for alarms and signals instead. Hence, the protectors are required because the cabling conducts static discharge so well. I've written about the source of the static discharge before –originating from when the housekeeping staff fluff the sheets and blankets during winter months and the sheets or blankets touch the desk phones that are on nightstands next to each bed in every room.
The one key reason there are any proprietary phones is because the general manager wants a phone in every guest room. So what's the problem?
(I need to add that I am not trying to make any case for desk phones or PBXs.) The reality is they won't disappear - dwindle, yes, but disappear, no - and I don't have an active crystal ball that reveals the numbers of installed and working desk phones.
Still, the GM wants desk phones. I had several discussions with the GM and staff. As a guest staying there and experiencing their Wi-Fi, I noted that the limited-distance modem that someone installed using existing underground pairs only support kbps speeds that diminish the already-slow speeds of the DSL service. Then, because there are retail routers with individual Wi-Fi and not managed services (controller), the network limps. Skype, once established in a room, all but kills the bandwidth. Pictures cannot be emailed if there's even one active Skype session running.
I am pretty certain I will return to this site later and install a network solution –one of those already mentioned above. But there's another point I'd like to discuss.
Every hotel GM knows the importance of Wi-Fi for their guests. But does the industry know the importance of developing Wi-Fi applications for hoteliers? What mobile client or other solution will support E911 and offer hoteliers the opportunity to provide "clients" or other solutions to their guests, in lieu of desk phones, that will do more than the phone? Or will desk phones remain a permanent fixture in the hospitality industry for safety/security reasons while providing convenience for guests to call the front desk, dining room, gift shop, spa or room service?
The hospitality industry knows that Wi-Fi is a big deal.
Follow Matt Brunk on Twitter and Google+!
@telecomworx
Matt Brunk on Google+
