Conversationware

You’d be forgiven for thinking that telephony lives in a vacuum. Considering that a bunch of ‘communications’ companies were in a big room for two days, I haven’t seen any blogging on the subject at all.

Our stand was busy enough that I had no time to go and see what else was of interest - so I was looking around on blog searches….nothing, nada!

Please feel free to point anything out I shouldn’t have missed!

So by most recent standards the show it was pretty good, and Olympia avoided the normal trade show tumbleweed, although Andy did have time to be on the phone occasionally.

Although we have a lot of solutions these days, Fax Over IP has really taken off in the last 12 months so we concentrated on that message - it went down really well for a mixture of channel and end users.

This one might even pay for itself

This is one of those ‘prediction’ posts for comms solution companies.

Talking to a couple of integrator partners today about the change of IPT solutions from hardware to software, and about software upgrade renewal plans, it became clear there are issues bubbling away for the unwary.

These maintenance and support plans are designed to give the customer a better deal on continuous upgrades, and encourage a well supported customer base - presumably to higher levels of customer satisfaction over the period.

As a customer you get to know your upgrade costs in advance, and don’t suddenly have to ‘find’ money you didn’t know you needed for an upgrade. Manufacturers get more revenue to fund further research ….so all well and good all round.

There’s a seemingly small issue though, one that can bite you

• The customer only wants to start their support contract from the completion of install, which can be months after original kit order
• The manufacturers start the 12 month clock when they ship

Renewals are sent from the kit manufacturer three months before you’re likely to see the revenue from your customer - and paying out months before you even know if you’re going to get your contract renewed isn’t much fun. 

This is compounded when lots of suppliers on the same install are going live at different times.

So, if your suppliers aren’t flexible about go live days for your orders - as opposed to ship dates - there will be trouble about 9 months later. Sounds about right when dealing with some manufacturers.

Our company supplies workflow solutions, so we can manage the lead times for solving the issues (saving a personal headache). But I bet there will be more than a fair few accounts in the industry on stop this time next year.

It’s Funny when you see someone try to recall an email.

Of course, the recall function serves only to highlight the original email to be read more closely, just to see where the rickett has been dropped, and how loud the clang was.

Another example of a terrible email mistake here at email tide

In my mind’s eye I can now see lots of Journalists flicking through a ‘deed poll’ search on google - seeing how much it would cost to change their name to Gordon Brown.

Don’t do it Jane!

There are three Matt Lambert’s in the UK around the technology field, one at Microsoft and one at a telecoms company. So, I do get voicemails from people I’ve never heard of every now and again….although nothing interesting seemlingly. But the more people you are ‘acquainted’ with, the less well you might know them, and this is going to happen more often.

In the comments in the linked article, there is a Thunderbird plugin that is designed with the ‘are you sure you want to send this’ button built in. Not bad, but possibly subject to the similar address blindness after a while.

What this highlights (again) is the fact that Email is a fairly blunt tool with which to be handling sensitive documents.

Surely there must be some enterprise 2.0 software that could handle a central repository, and sharing mechanism for messages, without overloading the user with yet more passwords. It makes you wonder if any other legal companies have gone with Google Docs for this?

Is Sharepoint the right vehicle - I’ve heard varying reports. I’ve got another Avanquest training session on this next week, perhaps it will sink in this time.

Talking of Passwords, methinks it is worth another look at OpenID again.

Perhaps this is old news already

A sale has been on the cards since they went completely indirect and the manufacture was outsourced (if memory serves).

I remember when the big UK PBX’s in the old days consisted of

• Siemens ISDX
• Mitel SX2000
• Nortel Meridian Option 11
• Alcatel 4400
• Lucent Definity
• Ericsson MD110

A bit crowded when certain other companies joined the fray I suppose.

Obviously there are no announcements from Aastra about futures yet, as this won’t be concluded until April 2008.

The MD110 had a superb installed base in the UK. Back in the day they had a very innovative and reliable distributed solution. It was kind of the Ford Granada of the comms world.  

I’m sure this won’t happen soon, and I feel a bit like an ambulance chaser - but if MD110 customers were to consider change, they should keep hold of their Unified Messaging Onebox system, as it is an AVST CallXpress system in disguise - and that fits onto any IPT PBX. (drop me a note).

I’m telling myself that it’s just being helpful really

There’s far too much of it about and I’ve just read some more here. Sorry Art, I have to call it like I see it

The clue is in the first paragraph, where it says;

“What was most interesting about this piece was that it quoted several different definitions of UC promoted by leading industry technology developers and analysts”

We can’t let people off with describing the technology just how they would like to see it at some far off distant point can we? Those leading developers and the pet analysts, with their own interests at heart, are currently spinning off each other into a dustcloud that nobody can see into.

I really don’t have a problem with people who disagree about a definition -if they would only come up with a definition that people can understand. Yes it can be complex, which is why a clear explanation is required….apply more rigor. If people can’t understand what you’re saying, stop talking.

Personally, I don’t think the following should be mixed up.

• Unified Messaging
• Real Time Communications (The real Unified Communications can stand up)
• Fixed Mobile Convergence
• Communications enabled business processes.

That’s because Unified Communications is about the person, the user - people communicate, companies don’t.

So, what exactly is being unified for the user? - Answer: GUI client software.

The whole point is that instead of installing ten types of client software and teaching the user to work each one, for the telephone, instant messaging, conferencing, video conferencing, web conferencing, for example - a user just has one interface and a single address book for the lot. Multimodal. By combining client software, we make it easier for the user to use - and therefore to understand.

You wouldn’t/couldn’t have a single interface for messaging and real time communications because they would have different buttons. I also can’t see people using GUI software on a mobile device, pie in the sky…but perhaps that’s just personal opinion.

UC will generate sales - but only when they show it fully working to the end users.

/end rant.

If anyone else wants to agree or disagree, feel free to join in.

I was amused at Tom Keating’s headline t.38 fax dead?  but it turned out to be one of those reverse, attention grabbing lines. Bloggers eh?

t.38 or traditional fax are neither dead, nor losing revenue as far as I can see, and I thought I would echo the amount of interest seen in the field. Fax over IP seminar’s, real or virtual are stacked out.

There’s are simple reasons for this

• Fax doesn’t work very well over a VOIP network, kind of important!
• When moving to a VOIP system, analogue extensions just seem so ancient
• The real benefit of a centralised fax server is that it’s easier to failover
• Small pockets of fax machines, at remote offices for example, are more cost effectively replaced through a centralised server (mimicking the voip system benefits)

A few things may interest people here

Few VOIP systems support t.38 natively yet. For example Cisco does, Avaya does, but Mitel doesn’t until later in the year. It’s likely you will need new kit or software when support does arrive.

The important thing about t.38 support is that it’s the VOIP gateway that is actually terminating the fax, and then passing it on to the centralised IP fax server. (there are other ways if necessary)

There are also some wrinkles to iron out. For example some MGCP encrypted VOIP systems can’t transport t.38 as yet.

So, to sum up, Fax Over IP, or t.38 is a coming technology, not a fading one. And given the Return on Investment and ‘green’ qualities that electronic fax can lend to a VOIP project, I can’t see it going anywhere but up the agenda.

With young children you sometimes worry about education. 

Well, beyond just the paying for it, you also wonder if ‘the powers that be’ can possibly keep up.

For instance I heard on the radio the other day that the establishment is worried about plagiarism by students from the internet. It reminds me of how worried they were when calculators came out (in my time), but eventually they worked out that machines weren’t going away and stopped worrying about basic math being practiced by older children with calculators.

Older children moved on to more advanced subjects.

I think we’re going to have to stop worrying about information - facts? - available on the internet, when discovered by older students. Why bother learning things by heart when the facts are available on wikipedia.

….arguable perhaps?

Meantime, I hope there are classes being planned on blogs, wiki’s, RSS feeds, linking, tagging.

Scott Karp talks here about why he, historically a very literate person, doesn’t read books anymore. He finds Networked thought much more powerful.

Me too.

Blogging and linking are a kind of thoughtful shorthand for ideas. If I don’t understand the squiggle - I click through, read the linked material - and then click back to continue the reading. Multiple people’s thoughts are then combined and blended and leveraged.

It’s just like you, as the single pupil in the class, having dozens of lecturers in front of you all building on each other’s ideas. No wonder that’s more powerful than a single linear, non-interactive ’broadcast’ by a single professor to 150 students. 

This video is worth another airing - it’s been watched 1.5 Million times so far.

When I looked for free web based email, I knew Gmail was going to be the best option.

With huge amounts of storage, accessible from my various PC’s, Spam filters and desktop notifications (so I don’t have to check for new mail, which is the most important), plus Gtalk Instant Messaging on the same login - so it proved.

Thus, when I wanted to have separate ‘blog’ email, I took a look at Google Apps (it’s free, so why not).

Google Apps is Gmail, but with your own domain - (e.g. mail is sent to name@company.com) but with all the above benefits, and more. Being free, I think it’s great value, and even at the premier edition at $50 per user per year - compared to the cost of running premises based equivalents is a no brainer.

Setting it up does mean you need your own domain, and access to the control panel to follow google’s instructions in moving the Email MX records…..it’s easier than it sounds though, and knowing someone who can help is useful.

On first impressions, it was good. But last year…..

I had the problem of trying to access two separate Gmail accounts from the same machine - it turned out to be very unwieldy flicking from account to account and notifications weren’t as timely if I wasn’t logged in.

It’s amazing how the little things prevent you from using and being completely happy with software.

Recently however, Google Apps and Gmail have both moved to supporting IMAP, and my problems have been solved. It’s brilliant!

One of the most useful additional applications is Docs - great for sharing information between boundaries….accessible from anywhere. I haven’t worked out my three different calendars yet, but there are apparently synching apps available.

I’m now using Thunderbird to receive and send mail from multiple gmail accounts (as well as a separate email account for work!). I can still be logged in to my primary gmail account (personal) for most of the day.

With all the above facilities, Google Apps is aimed at companies - but I always wondered whether companies would get over the trust issue. That is, trusting Google to look after their email.

I figured for my own part that if Google let any information go, their share price would slide, and therefore they had more to lose than I did.

There is an extremely interesting article here, showing a Legal company have made exactly the same decision.

Email server, Software, support, Spam software, archiving, the list of savings just goes on.

If you don’t need to support a LAN to run documents and email (with failover support), this tends to help free up both funds and the staff from looking after it, not to mention users who can literally work anywhere with mobile broadband.

It has to be worth most small companies time in having a look at this, and if Legal companies are happy to trust their customer’s information, then that shouldn’t stop anyone.

I saw a great movie about 13 years ago.

I didn’t forget Groundhog Day, and apart from featuring one of my favourite actors, the film also featured one of my favourite subjects - philosophy.

A number of my friends however just found the movie irritating, so I’ve mostly kept quiet…in the main. Anyhow, I’ve just discovered that I’m not the only amateur philosopher who liked it!

Someone, Paul Hannam to be specific, only went and wrote a book about how profound the movie is…another wierdo…hurrah, I’m not the only one.

So I feel utterly vindicated (how unusual) and if only my friends still read this blog, we might schedule another viewing.

I’ve had this link to an interview with the author open in a browser for about half an hour (whilst I wrote my previous post). What’s amusing is that the interview replays every five minutes, so I’ve heard it about 7 times now…..It really is Groundhog Day.

I could talk all day (who’d have guessed) about the movie - but just go and watch it.

Something is wrong with Presence.

I harp on about this technology, and I keep looking around to see whether I can be proved wrong.

So, I was grateful to Mike Gotta (again) for pointing to this audio interview (48MB, 50 Min) with one of the founding fathers of Presence, Peter St-Andre with Lee Dryburgh, who happens to be organising a Unified Communications event in the spring, Ecomm2008

I do like being proved wrong, although friends and family may disagree, but my problem with Presence is still that it doesn’t seem scalable beyond immediate and close relationships.

Although very entertaining, and well worth the (your) time, I’m not sure the interview answered all my questions.

Ok, here’s the beef.

The more people I know, the more likely I am to be interrupted at someone elses convenience. 

On the basis that I don’t want to micro-manage my availability between constantly changing relationships with all the people I know, I just can’t make it work.

I initially equated Presence with ‘Busy Lamp Field’.

This was a quaint term used to describe the lights on a key telephone system handset, that lit when someone lifted their phone handset. As an early key system evangelist I thought this ‘Presence’ was going to be great.

Of course, the supposition turned out to be wrong. Despite people desperately wanting it to work (including me). Busy Lamp Fields are possibly why ‘phone’ people are very keen on this tech, but BLF and IM are not the same!

Whilst a ‘lit lamp’ told someone I was on the phone, and helped them know ‘not to try calling me’ (note, try) - when the lamp wasn’t lit, it DID NOT mean I was definitely at my desk and available to talk.

Whereas, the blinking IM message says that until you reply, you’re being ignorant. The refusal to communicate is in broad daylight.

Thus, there is an emotional blackmail being set, and to my mind that is exactly why people don’t buy into it.

It almost pains me to say it, but telephone presence is more useful to the recipient than desk based presence, in that there is no obligation to interact.

Another problem exists and it is this.

As a real time communication, there are also less facilities than asynchronous communication. This question of synchronous vs asynchronous came up in the podcast also, but indirectly.

So, the time to compose a considered and consultative response just isn’t there in real time conversation.

You can’t forward an IM for consideration by someone to contribute (with any certainty someone is going to be there right now!)

And, unlike other web based communication, the conversation isn’t discoverable (indexed) and won’t contribute to the knowledge base of the rest of the community. 

I find it interesting that the chap who first got me thinking on the Presence subject, Alec Saunders, has his company, Iotum, pioneering another communications medium - the multiparty conference call. 

Interesting because the conference call, whosoever has one, is booked in advance, and has a subject. It is a viable alternative to Presence . The permission factor is key for me. I’m not yet sure whether this has a significance on Alec’s thoughts on his New Presence…dot dot dot.

So, let’s have an invite…and acceptance….to talk about a subject….at a particular time, or joint circumstance.

If we have agreed to talk on a subject, and we’ve both concurrently indicated we’re in free mode, THEN let the availability be shown. It’s better than trying to reclassify everyone I know.

In my view, Presence missed a step, the equivalent of the ringing phone invitation.