[cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Wed May 27 11:28:33 EDT 2009

There were many reasons - the main ones were as follows:

1)      Cisco had VERY limited development personnel on the product - it
was purely being maintained (i.e. no new features)

2)      Did not have the architecture to support new applications that
Cisco NEED it to in their System Releases (i.e. CUPS)

3)      Could not support "right to left" languages

4)      Did not support JAWS - for the Disabilities Act (as Voice Noob
says)

5)      Has been the cause of a great many CAP cases worldwide

6)      Simply does not offer the functionality that customers require -
was a major competitive advantage to other PBX vendors and their
Attendant Consoles

Of course, one of Cisco's considerations is to ensure that it is future
proof, and also supportable worldwide (languages etc) - all of which the
CUAC struggled to do

The bottom line is that the CUAC product could not meet customer
requirements, was problematic and was not going to be able to improve
over time as the rest of the Cisco UC suite moves on

Thanks

Bennie Grant
VP - Operations
Arc Solutions (International) Inc
Part of the Mettoni group | www.mettoni.com <http://www.mettoni.com/>  

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Voice Noob
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:17 AM
To: 'Tanner Ezell'; 'Matthew Loraditch'
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Junk!

I also heard it was due to not meeting the Americans With Disabilities
Act. 

From: Tanner Ezell [mailto:tanner.ezell at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:10 AM
To: Matthew Loraditch
Cc: Voice Noob; Bill Talley; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

I don't recall seeing it above, but what was the rational of removing
AC?

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Matthew Loraditch
<MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com> wrote:

Not necessarily,  I have a customer with 6 operators/receptionists but
that's because there are 6 different sites and there is an operator at
each site.  I'd imagine there are many others with this type of setup.

I have no idea what I'm going to do when it's time for 8.0, ARC is
ridiculously expensive for functionality these people have had for free
for years.

Matthew Loraditch
1965 Greenspring Drive

Timonium, MD 21093 
support at heliontechnologies.com <mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com> 
(p) (410) 252-8830
(F) (443) 541-1593

Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com
<http://www.heliontechnologies.com>  
Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com
<mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com>  for fast assistance!

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Voice Noob
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:55 AM
To: 'Bill Talley'
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net

Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Notice the B instead of D. I usually lead in with the CUBAC software.
Also if you have more than two or three "operators" you probably have a
call center and are putting the wrong product in for the customer. 

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btalley at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:53 AM
To: Voice Noob
Cc: Syed Khalid Ali; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

I thought CUDAC listed at $1395/seat.  I could be wrong, but is that not
per seat?  There's also added costs for software maintence, the server
to run it on, hardware maintence for the server, and labor to install
it.

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:

What are you paying $5,000 for? CUBAC is list $1,800 which can scale to
monitor 500 phones. 

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btalley at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:45 AM 

To: Voice Noob
Cc: Syed Khalid Ali; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Yes, thanks for the clarification Noob.  I was referencing sales that
occured prior to April 19 and those scenarios would no longer apply.

Free goes along when you just need basic functionality of line status,
park monitor, basic queuing and routing based on attendant availability
for only or two people and no more than that.   Note the operative term
in that statement is NOT 'free', it's 'basic'.  In my opinion, the ARC
solutions don't provide the same basic functionality as attendant
console in as simple of a way.    I'm not trying to debate which is
better, as ARC is a more scalable, more capable and probably more stable
application.  By saying 'basic' I'm including hardware requirements,
admin procedures, costs, etc.  In the scenarios where we've installed
the free Cisco Attendant Console, ARC is way overkill.  That's due to
either resistence to cost, IT staffing levels/skill sets, budgets,
hardware availability, etc.

That being said, as Ryan mentioned, 'the writing's on the wall', and
those scenarios will have to be dealt with.  However, there should be a
better alternative for small to medium business with only one or two
attendants than CUDAC.  Going from free to $5k for basic functionality
is a big deal in some cases. 

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:

It may be "free" but the functionality is very poor compared to the
other products. Also if you read the fine print it is only supported if
you purchased and installed before the EOL date. Not if you purchase
6.1.

From: Bill Talley [mailto:btalley at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:47 AM
To: Voice Noob
Cc: Syed Khalid Ali; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Not speaking for Syed, but we've had clients request UCM 6.1 because
Cisco Attendant Console is 'free' and supported for a longer period.
With UCM 7, at one time anyway, Attendant Console was only supported if
the system was upgraded from a previous version to UCM 7.x.  Perhaps
that's changed?

AFAIK, CUBAC, CUDAC and CUEAC are a significantly priced add-on, too
significant for many organizations in our case.

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Voice Noob <voicenoob at gmail.com> wrote:

Why would you order 6.1? You can use CUBAC, CUDAC, or CUEAC product
depending on your needs. They are all from ARC but are sold OEM by
Cisco.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Syed Khalid Ali
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:18 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco Attendant console and CCM version 7

Dear all,

I was checking the data sheet form CCM 7 and they are not bundled any
more. so what is the alternative.
I heard they have Enterprise Attendant Console and ARC Console.

If we order version 6.1, do we still need to order the console
separately?

--
Thanks,
Syed Khalid Ali
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

*************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.  http://www.mettoni.com

Mettoni Ltd
Registered in England and Wales: 4485956
9400 Garsington Road, Oxford Business Park, Oxford, OX4 2HN
*************************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090527/f11638ea/attachment.html>