I am an IT manager for a mid sized publishing company and we just replaced our phone system. We looked at both IP based and traditional PBXs. We went with the traditional PBX with an IP gateway. It did not make sense to abandon the investment in phone wiring and complicate our data network at the same time. Keeping the two separate but connected reduces points of failure and allowed us to leverage a very proven technology.
The only parts of the install that were difficult were with the IP side of the system. The traditional PBX side went off with out a hitch. The vendors are experienced and the tools are proven. For a company with out a dedicated telcom department and a simple network plan the traditional phone systems made the most sense.
Lease it out to corporations provided they offer wireless access priced competatively. Force them to offer national service by leasing the spectrum by frequency nationally not locally. This way it could help speed the spread of wireless internet access and help eliminate roaming issues.
It works for audio, text, contacts and calendar. I see the use for this course but it seems a bit of a stretch to make this practice widely available. Libraries could use ipods for checking out audio content which could save on duplication costs but campus networks could also share the files. Which would save a bunch on hardware, over the ipod option at least. Seems like a better marketing plan then educational tool.
He, rather eloquently, makes the point that has been made over and over again here on/. about what MS should do. It also points out weak points in MS's strategy that need to be exploited. The question is who is best suited to take advantage of these ideas. Some companies seems to be headed in this direction but is anyone, commercial or Open Source, already on this path?
What I find interesting is that a few governements have realized the risks associated with having too much of their technological infrastructure owned by one company, but most US governments still don't have a clue. This change seems mostly to be driven from overseas, it makes sense since microsoft is a US company.
Will the death of microsoft's dominance on the desktop come from a thousand small cuts around the world?
Slashdot Mirror
I am an IT manager for a mid sized publishing company and we just replaced our phone system. We looked at both IP based and traditional PBXs. We went with the traditional PBX with an IP gateway. It did not make sense to abandon the investment in phone wiring and complicate our data network at the same time. Keeping the two separate but connected reduces points of failure and allowed us to leverage a very proven technology. The only parts of the install that were difficult were with the IP side of the system. The traditional PBX side went off with out a hitch. The vendors are experienced and the tools are proven. For a company with out a dedicated telcom department and a simple network plan the traditional phone systems made the most sense.
Lease it out to corporations provided they offer wireless access priced competatively. Force them to offer national service by leasing the spectrum by frequency nationally not locally. This way it could help speed the spread of wireless internet access and help eliminate roaming issues.
It works for audio, text, contacts and calendar. I see the use for this course but it seems a bit of a stretch to make this practice widely available. Libraries could use ipods for checking out audio content which could save on duplication costs but campus networks could also share the files. Which would save a bunch on hardware, over the ipod option at least.
Seems like a better marketing plan then educational tool.
He, rather eloquently, makes the point that has been made over and over again here on /. about what MS should do. It also points out weak points in MS's strategy that need to be exploited. The question is who is best suited to take advantage of these ideas. Some companies seems to be headed in this direction but is anyone, commercial or Open Source, already on this path?
What I find interesting is that a few governements have realized the risks associated with having too much of their technological infrastructure owned by one company, but most US governments still don't have a clue. This change seems mostly to be driven from overseas, it makes sense since microsoft is a US company. Will the death of microsoft's dominance on the desktop come from a thousand small cuts around the world?