Is there any reason not to VoIP?

July 27, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Voice over IP technology is a mature technology that in many cases offers significant savings compared to conventional telephony. If you’re already paying for broadband, chances are switching to VoIP is a good idea. We routinely recommend it to clients.

Naturally, this begs the question: “Why bother with traditional telephony at all?” VoIP is useful, but it’s not a telecom panacea. There are still situations where traditional phone service has the edge. For some people, this may take the shine off of VoIP. Let’s walk through them.

No outage protection: If your power’s out, your VoIP phone doesn’t work. If you routinely use a cell phone as well this is probably not such a big deal, but it could become a problem in major emergencies, where wireless networks will slow and fail in response to increased call volume.

911 Problems: IP addresses don’t correspond to fixed gegraphical points in the way traditional phone numbers do. There are a workarounds for this, but they aren’t as reliable as traditional phones. Some regions have dedicated E911 for VoIP customers, but in this case the operator relies on billing information to establish the caller’s location. If your provider has out of date or incorrect information, emergency services may go to the wrong address.

Tied to Internet uptime: When your Internet’s down, your phone stops working. If you suffer frequent downtimes your savings might not justify constant service interruptions.

DoS attack and eavesdropping vulnerabilities: VoIP is vulnerable to packet interception and denial of service attacks in just the same way as standard Internet communications. Mass requests to the phone’s associated IP can shut it down. VoIP is usually not encrypted, so anyone with the requisite expertise can eavesdrop on calls. These vulnerabilities don’t matter to most users, but they’re guaranteed dealbreakers in high-security industries.

Quality issues: VoIP works because it uses the same packet-based protocols as other Internet communications. The drawback is that packet loss will interfere with voice communications. Users may experience a temporary interruption of service whenever the network experiences heavy usage. This parallels the slowdown you might get loading web pages at these times, and it happens for the same reasons. There are also problems sending faxes, but developing protocols may eventually resolve these.

To sum up, if your business has the same needs as a typical household (even if the scale is larger), VoIP might be the cost reduction solution you need. If you have other needs, consider the tradeoffs carefully. You might want to stick with traditional phone service for these reasons:

  • Your company has safety issues to consider. Examples include heavy industry and medicine.
  • Security is important to you. Law, some government contractors and defense industry companies should consider the drawbacks.
  • You send a lot of faxes.
  • Â You need total reliability. Emergency services and other industries that need to be on-call should stick to standard phone service for critical lines.

Note, however, that it’s not always an either/or situation. GILL Technologies can manage multiple services for you to save traditional lines for critical services, and VoIP for everything else. Contact us to find out more.

Filed Under: Cost Reduction, Telecom Audit, Telecom Expense Management Tagged With: , , , , ,

Whither WiMAX?

July 20, 2008 By 3 Comments

Two or three years ago we braced for a yet another communications paradigm shift — one that was supposed to take effect now. The mobile WiMAX revolution would have been fascinating for use telecom expense management folks. Maybe it still will be, but despite the tremendous promises of the technology there’s been more fizzle than pop out of it.

WiMAX is designed to provide WiFi data capabilities over large geographical regions. In North America, it’s seen limited market penetration. Here, it mostly replaces the “series of tubes” most of us use, but at the other end a fixed base station relays it all to local devices, making it functionally identical to standard broadband.

This is all well and good if you’re living in the country and need a replacement for the ol’ series of tubes, but for the rest of us, WiMAX’s real potential lies in providing broadband to mobile devices. Mobile WiMAX standards were approved in 2006 and various hardware companies promised to roll out the hardware by this year. So what happened?

In North America, the carriers and manufacturers are stuck in a holding pattern. Even though 3G has started to kick carriers out of being so miserly with data, the fact remains that the economic motives for companies to support WiMAX are murky, because they create consumer expectations of cheap, universal access — something anathema to the old business model for mobile data access. Hardware manufacturers don’t have any desire to churn out devices that won’t get broad support. WiMAX’s spotty commercial record in Canada and Australia definitely hasn’t helped either. Canada’s forerunner Inukshuk network is a traditional last-mile provider and the CEO of Australia’s Buzz Broadband dubbed his own company’s initiative a “miserable failure,” blaming second tier providers and persistent technical issues.

If there’s a viable future for WiMAX, it may be in the hands of Clearwire after it finishes merging with Sprint Nextel’s Xohm. Clearwire is the focus of a joint venture between several major carriers and may represent a positive next step for adopting the technology. From a telecom expense management perspective, this could presage several interesting changes. Strictly metered data fees are dying, but unlimited plans are generally synched to a few exclusive deals. If WiMAX succeeds, it opens the way for a competitive environment where consumers don’t have to track typical data usage — unlimited high speed will be something your phone just does. WiMAX might not be the winning backbone, but the idea’s on the table — and wouldn’t it be cool?

Filed Under: Cellular Expense Management, Telecom Expense Management Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Uh Oh — Bell and Telus to charge for incoming text messages

July 16, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Canadians are due for some unhappy developments. Bell and Telus will charge for incoming text messages starting in August (8th for Bell, 24th for Telus). Getting a text message will cost 15 cents a pop unless you have an unlimited texting plan.

How will they keep people from being charged for text spam? Blogger Mark Goldberg also raises the specter of text cyber-bullying — mean kids with plans spamming kids without them. It seems that both companies have placed the burden for recovering charges for unwanted messages on the consumer. The other option: Block messages completely. The move seems designed to discourage occasional texters — and grab wads of cash from less attentive customers. It has aroused such ire that Canada’s Industry Minister has asked Bell and Telus executives to explain themselves.

Things like this underscore the need for cost reduction and cellular expense management services. So far, it looks like if you get unwanted messages, you’ll have to fight the telecom companies to get them taken off your bill. If you need texting for business, it’s time to find a cost-effective plan. Our communications management software can help clients keep their texting under control, and customer service means that you don’t have to fight over unwanted text messages — we’ll do it for you.

Filed Under: Cellular Expense Management, Communications Management Software, Cost Reduction, Telecom Audit Tagged With: , , , ,

The iPhone Lands Like a Canada Goose — In Canada, That Is

July 16, 2008 By Leave a Comment

So, it’s in Canada now. After much speculation, wailing and gnashing of teeth, Canadians can finally get their own iPhones. How did things work out for folks north of the 49th Parallel? Let’s look at the Good, the Not So Good, and the Telecom Expense Management Angle.

The Good: Canadians got hardware price parity — the Canadian 8 GB iPhone is $199. Fueled by rising fuel prices and a downturn in US currency, the Canadian dollar has floated at near parity with the US dollar for a while now, but prices have been slow to change in response. Canadians are used to paying more, but by now they shouldn’t really have to. When it comes to buying the iPhone, they enjoy the same discount as American customers. Canadians should hope that this new parity eventually extends to other products and services but they might have some additional hurdles to jump because . . .

The Not So Good:Â . . . while the base prices are at parity, Canadians have to pay more — sometimes a lot more — to use the same features. Originally, Rogers’ announced plans were . . . insane. The cheapest package for Rogers was CAN$60 for 400 megs and it went up, up, up from there. After widespread consumer outrage, Rogers offered a 6 GB plan for CAN$30 instead — for now. If you don’t get an iPhone by August 31st, Rogers will revert to its previous, cringe worthy pricing scheme.

Worse, Rogers doesn’t exactly want you to know that there’s a deal afoot. Go to the iPhone plans page. Notice how you have to scroll down to see the new plan? How the price isn’t mentioned, and you need to click on an additional link to find it? How, in fact, you could miss it completely if you followed the site’s guidance?

Nice going. And remember: If you buy one, you’re on the hook for three years: the longest iPhone plan commitment in the world.

The Telecom Expense Management Angle: You want to save money buying a phone from a monopoly that only offered a decent plan under duress, seems to be hoping you’ll miss the chance, and reserves the right to eliminate it at any time? What could possibly go wrong?

It’s a pity, really. The 3G iPhone is probably the first iteration of the device that has more than hype and sleek design going for it. It has formidable data capabilities and could be a legitimate business tool, but at post-August 31st rates it’ll be more of a status symbol than anything else. Plus, being locked into Rogers means you don’t benefit from carrier competition.

This doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do for an iPhone user. We can still monitor usage and billing errors to save Canadian iPhone users money. Better yet, if you discount the branding angle, the iPhone does help you indirectly, because other manufacturers are stepping up to the plate with exciting mobile devices aimed squarely at iPhone’s niche. Once they mature, you’ll be able to get a cool equivalent without hooking up with a questionable plan.

Filed Under: Cellular Expense Management, Cost Reduction, Telecom Audit, Telecom Expense Management Tagged With: , , , , ,