Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility

[Tim Ingalls]

Todd, This user list is for USERS. It's even in the name of the list: sipx-users. Maybe you should start a new list called sipx-prospects so that you can protect your people from seeing any negatives in sipXecs. If this isn't the forum for detailing problems and asking for help, please point me to the forum that would do that. Otherwise, I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. People post problems on here all the time. And they don't always get solutions. And they get frustrated. And they don't come back. Or they do come back, but they make clear that they have deep disagreements on what sipXecs can and cannot do. If your prospect can read my post, I'm quite sure they can read all of the others. Are you going to start tearing down all of the other users who post problems because they are pointing out faults with your favorite money maker? Just because someone doesn't have the same perspective as you, it doesn't follow that they are wrong. Are you seriously saying that nothing I said has merit? I pointed out actual problems, not fake ones I was using to discredit sipXecs. I don't think you should worry too much about your prospect. There is nothing that has happened to your customer's point of view that can't be countered by good sales skills. Please allow me to suggest a few ways to overcome those objections. 1. Explain to your customer that the person who wrote that stuff (me) doesn't have as much experience and knowledge as you. That's a very effective way to overcome that objection. Point to your certifications. Point to your experience and to my relative lack of experience. I'll even post right here in the forum that I'm a dummy. I AM A DUMMY!! There, that should help. 2. Why can't you provide them with references to call? A good testimonial goes a long way in overcoming Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. 3. If I have listed issues (that truly do exist), then tell your prospect why they don't have anything to do with how you will implement your system. Show them why I have had these problems and why they won't have those same problems. These are basic sales skills and can be learned by anyone. The great thing is that if your customer reads this post, it doesn't take anything away from your power to overcome his concerns, because this is all true. You DO perform a great job for your customers. I'm sure they would all say that. You DO have lots more experience in technical things than I do (but not so much in sales). You WILL deploy a system that avoids the pitfalls I have so clumsily fallen into. Oh, and if you land the sale with my help, please consider throwing some free advice my way. I was not being mean-spirited to look for solutions to my problem. Nor was I inappropriate to suggest how complicated it is for someone new to the project to learn all of its ins and outs. I will not accept that I can't raise concerns about the project in an effort to make it better. I think that most other people who have responded have had the attitude that suggesting ways to improve sipXecs is a good thing, and they accept that I am sincere in not trying to just complain. And finally, I see nothing wrong with trying to use sipXecs to make money and ask for help in doing so. I'm hoping that I can hire some people who would otherwise be jobless, train them how to do this stuff, and see them succeed. And finally, finally, if you have your system down so well, can you recall that I said that I'm interested in paying someone to do the technical stuff for me? This is an opportunity for you if you see it that way. Happy birthday. Thanks, Tim Ingalls Shared Communications, Inc. 801-618-2102 Office On 02/17/2012 09:25 PM, Todd Hodgen wrote: See comments below.   From: Tim Ingalls [mailto:t...@sharedcom.net] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:12 PM To: Todd Hodgen Subject: Re: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility   Todd, I'm sorry my post disappointed you. But it is what it is – from your perspective.  I certainly don’t agree with your perspective.  You are entitled to your opinion, and equal rights on the user group, no doubt there.  But bear in mind that there are many on the list that invite our customers there to learn, that spend a lot of time working to improving things, etc.  It is my own opinion that your comments were damaging to this project, and for me almost seeme mean spirited – my opinion.. This is really what's going on from the perspective of a moderately-technical guy who has used Linux for the past 10 years and has sold telecom services for 16 years. Tim, I don’t see what selling telecom services has to do with building a commercial telephone platform, as one has nothing to do whith the other.  And being moderately technical I don’t believe is enough to take an open source product to a commercial product.  A moderately technical guy should start with a commercial product to learn from first.   I offer two commercial products, besides sipXecs, because there are limitations in it just like ALL products, and one round peg does not fit in all of the holes.  Don't you think that honesty is really what we need to improve the project? If sipXecs is really this complicated to make it work correctly with an ITSP You miss the point here completely.  Let me give you an example.   Broadvox is a national carrier.  Their legacy platform works well with sipXecs – configure it works, and well.  Their new platform does not work with sipexecs.  But I don’t blam sipXecs because they are compliant with the standards and Broadvox refuses to accecpt invites without SDP.  Their failure to meet the minimum requirements of the RFC does not mean that sipXecs is at issue, in fact quite to the contrary.  The fact that VOIP.ms loses its connectivity in some of their switches, and not in others is their issue, not sipXecs.  They have some great switches that are underutilized, and some old switches that are overutilized., then it deserves that reputation  Again – in your less than experienced view. Your and others' heart and soul is greatly appreciated. But being rigorous with testing and documentation and detailing the flaws of the system are just as important for the success of the project. Making the system easy to implement for moderately technical do-it-yourself types like myself is critical for the project to progress. I think I am the demographic that sipXecs needs, and this is my perspective.  I don’t agree with your assumption here. As an example, how many people do you know who deploy Freeswitch without a GUI? None.  I wouldn’t deploy freeswitch because it’s not designed for deployment by itself.  Probably just the really really technical people who can program in Java, XML, etc. Even though I have heard it is technically superior to Asterisk, it isn't as frequently deployed because it is too difficult for guys like me to understand without being programmers.  It’s simply not designed for people like you, or for me for that matter.  It works well behind the gui for sipXecs as a media server.  It works well with Cudatel and their gui.   That is the type of view of a product a company deploying commercial products takes when they evaluate products. I am overjoyed to hear that you have many commercial customers that you have zero issues with. That gives me hope that I could do it too. You're exactly the person I want to learn from. How did you do it? Do you use ITSPs? If so, which ones? What configurations work, and which don't? Instead of sipXbridge, if you use an external SIP gateway, what do you use? How do you configure it? What would you charge per hour to consult on the technical setup for my customers? You mentioned that if you use the right design, the right ITSP, and the right equipment, but you don't say what they are. What?  We are supposed to teach network design on this user group that is about sipXecs?  What networking gear (router, POE switch, firewall, etc.) do you use? Which ones would cause problems? Please be specific. I'm trying to learn what tricks and tips you have learned over the years. I know that some of this is in the wiki, but lots of specifics are missing.  Tim, I give advice freely to people all the time. But, you ever see someone pick their nose in a restaurant?  It kinds of spoils your appetite.  In view personal view, your email was inappropriate, and I could not in good conscience help you.  I believe it was damaging to the project, and I won’t reward behavior like that. Finally, you mentioned Ezuce. I thought about registering as a partner, but I didn't want to spend $500 just to sign up with yet another vendor. I agree.  I don’t sell eZuce, and that is one of the reasons.  I am an agent for several carriers and I have never had to pay money for the opportunity to sell something for them. I was especially hesitant because I have had so many issues with my sipXecs deployment. If you know of some other organizations you would suggest that I partner with, please tell me who they are.   Tim, I have sold Millions of telecom equipment over the past 35 years.  In fact $22 Million to one customer in one sale over 10 years ago.  I do this because I enjoy it.  I do it because it is rewarding to me personally, not financially.  My customers love what I deliver, it helps them save money, in many cases it is what puts them in the black when they are bleeding.   I feel confident in what I deliver.  But when a customer forwards your email to me and starts questioning what I have talked them into, I get frustrated.  That email from them, which caused me to read your email, came at the end of a wonderful birthday spent with my wife, children and friends.  It put me over the top, and was very disappointing to read at the end of a otherwise beautiful day.   This is all I have on the subject.  I hope you put more thoughts into your emails to this list in the future, as I don’t believe you helped yourself much.  Otherwise, you might want to consider Trixbox, or Asterisk, or other commercial applications for building your business around.   Regards,   Todd Hodgen Thanks,   Tim Ingalls Shared Communications, Inc. 801-618-2102 Office   On 02/16/2012 07:58 PM, Todd Hodgen wrote: Tim,   This type of email is disappointing for me.  They highlight negative experiences that are experienced by a user, and do nothing to help this project.  I’m sure you are being open and honest, but all that it shows is that you are struggling with the system, in your deployment, and it gives a black eye to a very well design platform that a lot of dedicated individuals have poured their heart and soul into.   I can tell you that I have many commercial customers that use sipXecs daily, and I have ZERO issues to deal with on a daily basis.   But, how did I get to this point – many years of experience with telephony, understanding the components that are required for engineering a great solution, and time and patience in a lab environment to understand what is commercially viable for my customers.   This is a great solution, but it is not for everyone.  I also have two other commercial solutions available for my customers, which I use when sipXecs is not a perfect fit.  However, that is rare.   In general, the majority of the issues I have ever had are related to ITSP reliability, QOS related to the Network, occasional software issues with Telephones, and the occasion bug in sipXecs, like any other software platform.  The sipXecs issues have never been a show stopper for any of my customers.  I can’t be any more honest or direct about my experience.   There are resources available for a fee that can help your learning curve, or the eZuce platform may be a better fit for you.  I can say with certainty, this is a great product, that I have no fear in offering to a commercial customer, and know they will be 100% satisfied when the project is done.  Most of my business is referrals from very happy customers.  It really is that good!   My advice is understand the product, invest in excellent equipment, and chose the network design and the ITSP or Telco carefully.   Mindful that this is an open source platform, it would be very rare for me to deploy a new software release until it has been vetted in the field for at least a few months or more.  I am right now updating 4.2.1 customers to 4.4, although I started deploying 4.4 in the August timeframe for new customers.   Not everyone is a good fit for offering open source products as a commercial option, that is why there are so many options out there, and I would sincerely consider eZuce as one of them, with the right design, the right components, and the right technical expertise to offer it to a commercial customer.   Quite frankly, the trace process for sipXecs, along with features of Wireshark, and other applications commercially available on the market seem to work well for isolationing issues.  Is it perfect, not by a long shot.  But I have seen less in much more expensive products on the market today.   From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ingalls Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:03 PM To: sipx-users list Subject: [sipx-users] sipXecs Commercial Feasibility   Hi Everyone. I promise I am not trying to be a troll. I have some serious questions that I hope I can ask honestly and get some honest feedback about using the free version of sipXecs as a commercial product. I implemented sipXecs about a year ago. My hope was to find something more reliable than Asterisk/Trixbox/FreePBX and easier to deploy. My purpose was to start selling phone systems and SIP trunking to businesses as a VAR. So far, after testing the system day in and day out as my home/home-office phone system, I haven't found it stable enough to feel comfortable selling it to customers. I have had a host of issues with sipXecs, and every time I think I've got the platform stable, something else fails and I get one of those barely-descriptive error messages in my email inbox. I've followed the instructions from the book, the wiki, and this forum, but still have issues every month. Some of the issues are as follows: Routing inbound calls to an auto-attendant worked great for a long time and then just stopped working one day. After connecting the call, visitors were greeted with no sound at all. I decided after hours of trying everything to just skip the auto-attendant and deactivate it. With both Vitelity and Voip.ms, I have problems where periodically an authentication request is rejected. Instead of re-trying immediately, sipXecs waits a full 10 minutes to try to connect again. Nuances about how certain ITSPs (e.g., Vitelity and Voip.ms) work, and how you can and cannot connect to them without getting strange behavior like inbound audio not working, rejected authentication requests, etc., take days and weeks to isolate sometimes. These are not very well tested nor documented. I think that a serious effort at interop testing and certification should be undertaken with detailed results --warts and all-- posted so that someone can make an educated decision when selecting an ITSP to use with sipXecs. Just a few days ago, calls that were transfered to voicemail resulted in the call failing and the ITSP routing the call to my failover phone number (my cell phone) -- this is after the call initially rang correctly. Rebooting the system fixed it for some reason. Why? Periodically, (perhaps due to a sipviscious attack) certain services just stop working. Sometimes it is the proxy service. Sometimes it is the registrar service. Sometimes it is the NAT traversal feature as a result of temporarily not being able to reach the STUN server assigned (since there is no back-up STUN server setting). Why should these services just fail and require human intervention to restart them? Can't they just time out for a certain short period and then fix themselves? CID doesn't work reliably. I change all of the settings as I'm told in the wiki, but it still doesn't get transmitted correctly (or at all). For some of my users, it works flawlessly, and for others it doesn't work at all. Doing a SIP trace to isolate an issue is a pain in the neck. In Asterisk, all you have to do is type "asterisk -rvv" and you can see a dialog stream which you can read quickly. With sipXecs, you have to run a series of research tasks to find the call in question, convert the time to UTC, grep for the time stamp in a big list of calls, then create a merged XML file, then load it into SIPViewer, and then find what you are looking for. The process takes at least 5 minutes if you are an expert. Those are just a few examples. I'm always wondering what is going to go wrong next. It drives me (and my wife and kids) crazy. I never had this many problems with Trixbox. I'm not saying that sipXecs doesn't have its good points. I'm just saying that over the last year+ since I started using 4.2 and then 4.4, it has been anything but reliable. Reliability is the number one need for commercial clients. Yes, I'll admit that it could all be my fault. It probably is. But there are so many options, so many opinions, so many sources of information, (there are even so many places to set port numbers for various things) that it seems you have to do only sipXecs development for a living to be able to deploy it correctly. It is far from simple. And that complexity is part of the problem. I know that some of you have deployed many of these systems in a commercial setting, so I have to ask you, how do you do it? I'm too afraid that if I deploy sipXecs in an actual customer's location that they'll hate me within a few months and ask for their money back. How do you set everything up (selection of ITSP, etc.) so that the system is rock-solid reliable? Can we collect some rock-solid fool-proof (as much as possible) recipes that are known to work reliably every time? This seems to be something that should be placed on the wiki. I know that there are 100+ ways to configure the system (SIP trunking gateway configs, various hardware, ITSP settings, dial rules, etc.). I'm looking for just the recipes that make the system reliable. I also know that there are various conflicting opinions on this forum about what works and what doesn't. I'm looking for PROVEN opinions. This is my final shot before I give up on the platform. I'd even be willing to partner with someone who has a near-flawless system implemented and pay you to do the technical part if you can prove your solution is stable. Until I find the answer to this problem, I can't use sipXecs as the cornerstone of my business plan and will have to move on. If I can solve this issue, I'd be willing to pay for further development out of my profits. I know someone will suggest that I should just sell Ezuce's commercial products. Based on what I've experienced so far, I don't think I'd feel confident in relying on Ezuce to be the partner in question. If the open-source version has these problems, what's to say that the commercial version is any better? Does anyone else experience the same reliability issues? Also, is anyone willing to have a phone conversation about this and impart some wisdom or have a partnership conversation? -- Thanks,   Tim Ingalls Shared Communications, Inc. 801-618-2102 Office

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/