No Jitter is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

The Ceiling is Rising

Some direct responses to my reply about the status of TDM generated some important points made by readers and another publisher. After recently attending a boot-camp training session, I collected a few comments from that group comprising 16 members from large-enterprise including two others from SMB/E.

Some direct responses to my reply about the status of TDM generated some important points made by readers and another publisher. After recently attending a boot-camp training session, I collected a few comments from that group comprising 16 members from large-enterprise including two others from SMB/E.Key Comments

  • It's important to understand how immense the TDM installed base is
  • "Hybrid" is where a lot of people are ending up
  • Many sites are not wired/equipped to do VoIP- this is a speed bump
  • The hybrid to the TDM platform pencils [i.e., cost justifies] better and enables a lower risk entrance into this technology
  • We have nearly 9,000 U.S locations, all with single line (2500) sets. We're not changing what's cost effective
  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • "Hybrid" is where a lot of people are ending up
  • Many sites are not wired/equipped to do VoIP- this is a speed bump
  • The hybrid to the TDM platform pencils [i.e., cost justifies] better and enables a lower risk entrance into this technology
  • We have nearly 9,000 U.S locations, all with single line (2500) sets. We're not changing what's cost effective
  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • Many sites are not wired/equipped to do VoIP- this is a speed bump
  • The hybrid to the TDM platform pencils [i.e., cost justifies] better and enables a lower risk entrance into this technology
  • We have nearly 9,000 U.S locations, all with single line (2500) sets. We're not changing what's cost effective
  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • The hybrid to the TDM platform pencils [i.e., cost justifies] better and enables a lower risk entrance into this technology
  • We have nearly 9,000 U.S locations, all with single line (2500) sets. We're not changing what's cost effective
  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • We have nearly 9,000 U.S locations, all with single line (2500) sets. We're not changing what's cost effective
  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • CFOs don't get paid enough to take the risks associated with technology that doesn't perform
  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

  • Value is key, having those 500+ features or the ones anyone wants at any given time is what users have come to expect

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.

    The TDM market is big, and the TDM industry is composed of segments- and no one disputed the fact that the SMB market is the lion's share of TDM. There's also the small-very small group and this is where a lot of TDM still makes sense economically. Smart 2500 or multi-line KSU-less telephones still exist and it doesn't mean that IP doesn't or won't fit, it just means it (IPT) has to scale to the terms (features and value) and provide tipping point rationale as motivation to go IP. Then, enterprise and global companies just scale differently, as does everything in between.

    I believe that bar must be raised, and that the standards must be better than and equal to--as well as cost less than and perform cheaper than--TDM. The ceiling of expectations must be raised, not lowered, but not because we don't use all those features (develop or use your own through customization), or the argument that it costs too much to maintain two separate cable plants- no it doesn't. Every marketing hook has been thrown at reasons to go IP and the users seemingly do know better than most.

    It's bad enough calling into a call center with agents telling you that there are computer problems, but not being able to call into that call center because it's down is an experience that just doesn't wash well. One seasoned instructor said to me, "Matt, what's wrong with better, faster, simpler? Throwing more technology at the workforce doesn't necessarily make them better, more efficient or effective- and instead, their work lives are sometimes complicated by the technology thrown at them."

    Intecom made a comment in- Is the Sky Falling post and noted, "Our customers tend to be very loyal and many of our IBX customers upgraded to the Intecom E beginning in 1993 without replacing phones or training." TDM manufacturers have crafted over many years, their own migration strategies. I think this is essentially tactical and important to understand in moving ahead with any solution. IP systems sold today must craft new migration strategies that include not just making the deployed system serve an existing need, but to strategically bring value to the company (i.e., the customer adopting IPT) and increase the company's core value to shareholders or private investors. Past thinking of telecom or 'voice' as just another utility or application is detrimental because those companies with these mindsets will lose value out of the gate with this attitude. The opportunities ahead go hand in hand with the challenges, which aren't less or easier than past times. "Value equals features" rings true, and true value includes improving the organization's net worth.

    TDM factory guys know that good migration allows companies to re-use their old phones (investment protection) on newer systems, including some old system components. Whenever any customer can upgrade their telephone system (the box or just software) and keep their old phones- that the process is near painless. This protects the original investment dollars, prolongs equipment life, eases migration and is intrinsically a positive experience for the users. I've asked Avaya, NEC, Nortel and Toshiba customers for years- "why do you want to change? Why not stick with your manufacturer (maybe change your vendor) and just change the system, keep the old phones and avoid disruption to your business?" It's one thing if any system has shortfalls and the answer is to address them individually or if necessary, replace the system and move into a different product line (manufacturer). Changing vendors supporting the system is sometimes just as painful but more viable than changing products.

    I know first hand this is a key factor in our customer retention rate at Telecomworx. It's not because we can tap dance to every tune or desire of every user, or because we are the best or cheapest, the biggest, have the most number of trucks or have a lot of or the most marketing. The factory TDM guys did do something right. So as a basic litmus test, all the products (TDM, IP, Hybrid, Hosted) should sell themselves and be able to stand on their own and in so doing, the products must provide value that includes yesterday's technology and beyond.

    Anyone building out new spaces and buildings today cannot afford to not look at IPT, especially since the TIA cabling standard was raised to Category 6A. These costs if elected by the customer make deploying multi-drops an expensive undertaking because the 6A cable is bigger, costs more because of copper and petrol use, costs more to deploy (manpower) since it is significantly heavier. Then, to depend upon the IP telephone to deliver 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps to the worktop isn't what I call a good balance of technology, especially when you need to provide power and can anticipate a shorter life span of network endpoints in the process. Deploying multiple drops defeats the old benefit that was often (One cable - One infrastructure) cited for switching over to IP in the first place.

    Sub-WATT IP phones aren't the norm in the U.S. either, and while more advanced wireless is on the horizon, it will be yet another obstacle. Leveraging DECT or WiFi phones that are IP capable may prove beneficial as a method to reduce power requirements and provide mobility in the enterprise's local environment. Gluing the requirements to the cell service is still another hurdle.

    While I still can't conclude or speculate the time for the end of TDM, I can reason that users want better, faster, cheaper and simpler. The challenges or barriers facing the trade are: higher costs for cabling infrastructures, escalating costs for energy, ability to manage voice not just as an application but also as a service, simplicity delivered to the users, and then demands of people requiring mobility. Hybrid is still selling better and that's because it does make sense and I still think that any L-enterprise abandoning its existing structured wiring plant has gotten seduced by the technology or marketing or even both.

    "In the days ahead," as one publisher wrote me, "just migrating Nortel's TDM base is estimated at $27 billion" and we all know about estimates and that's just one manufacturer. In ten years, I'd bet/hope that Nortel's installed base value increases two or threefold, as should the businesses making that 'stateful' move into IP. Immense? Yes, indeed it is as are the opportunities in telecommunications and moving customer businesses to a higher standard.