[cisco-voip] QoS and Microsoft OCS

[Nick Matthews]

Some other cost factors:
-Maintaining a separate gateway.  Hardware, software, maintenance,
personnel to support separate system.
-costs of upgrades
-hardware costs
-support costs
-conferencing/collab costs
-expected lifetime of system
-some of the over-arching licensing costs with microsoft (CAL)

If you want to take a look at it with your account team I'm sure they
would be more than eager to help.

-nick

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick--
> I don't think I understand the "Cisco voice mail earns its keep"?  What
> other factors am I missing?
> Scott
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <marketing>
>>
>> FWIW in regards to the 'free' licensing from Microsoft - the general
>> response is that the licensing is a smaller percentage of the TCO than
>> you might expect, and the pricing isn't that much different.  After
>> other factors are added is where the Cisco voicemail earns its keep.
>>
>> </marketing>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Agreement with Ed.
>> > In education (maybe more verticals) people are (we included) moving from
>> > Unity to Exchange 2010 for UM.  Exchange 2010 is really cool with the
>> > speech
>> > to text feature.  and I get most of it covered under my Microsoft Site
>> > licensing vs huge maintenance cost from Cisco.  I've been screaming at
>> > Cisco
>> > since one of my schools moved to UM exchange 2007 about 3 years ago
>> > about
>> > costs...... Cisco has not moved so we are in the process of moving.
>> > as for CUPS vs OCS we have been using OCS (again largely covered under
>> > M$
>> > site licensing) for IM / presence and loving it.  we will be looking at
>> > adding the cisco Cookie - moc (or however they spell it) to integrate
>> > cisco
>> > CM with OCS.  From my understanding...... most people like OCS better
>> > then
>> > CUPS for features.  YMMV.
>> > as for Call control I still like CM for the price (haven't had the talk
>> > with
>> > my AM about UCL) and Contract center express has helped us with all the
>> > reporting.  CER is a good product also.  If price were no object thou, I
>> > would go with 911enable.  but since price is...... CER works fine.
>> > just my 2 cents
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Matt Slaga (US)
>> >> <Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > With this said, the next release of OCS (now called ‘MCS’) will be a
>> >> > much closer peer-level with Cisco on the voice side.  For now though,
>> >> > the
>> >> > best of both worlds can be found in integration of the two.
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious... we have had CallManager/Unity/Contact Center Express in
>> >> use for several years (although we don't take advantage of as many
>> >> features as we could).  We also have Exchange (2003, soon to be 2010)
>> >> for our main mail system (our Unity server is in a separate AD
>> >> forest/exchange store although that's likely to change).  There's been
>> >> some push by our Exchange people to implement some of the OCS
>> >> functionality for our users.
>> >>
>> >> Is there really a benefit to going with OCS vs using what we have with
>> >> Cisco and maybe adding a CUPS server?  The promised XMPP integration
>> >> in CUPS 8 looks very interesting to me.  I also need to implement
>> >> Cisco Emergency Responder soon too.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jeff Ollie
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>
>