[Asterisk-Users] Re: Transfer with Budgetone

[Tony Hoyle]

Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Plus consultative transfer calls

Well yes... pbx's job though (usually, although apparently not always...).

> Plus speaker phone

No allowed to use them as they disturb people working.

> Plus conferencing

We have a conferencing phone which is a huge triangular thing with lots 
of speakers on it.  Can't see the point of putting that functionality on 
a desktop phone.

> Plus call parking

Never completely understood what that was...  We don't even have hold at 
the moment so nobody will miss it.  We have a mute button for that purpose.

> Plus music on hold

Don't have that now (no hold, see above).

> I don't think you have a complete list of requirements there...

A 10 number memory would be nice (some of the better phones have a row 
of buttons down the side for frequently used numbers... ).  Maybe there 
are some that know how to do other things (I don't know everything that 
goes on) but the phones don't natively support any of it, and AFAIK 
nobody actually knows how to use the PBX (!).

> Would be nice, but I suspect it will be another year or two before we
> get there. It is all about volume, and today, there isn't enough volume
> to cause the price to reduce by that much... (AFAIK)...

I can't help feeling that VOIP will get there one day but isn't there 
yet.  When I can walk down the high street and pick one up then it'll be 
definately 'there' but today virtually nobody's heard of it.

> Try *8 instead on Asterisk systems....

I'll modify the code if asterisk gets used.

> If *you* want to use asterisk, then I suggest you look at what Asterisk

Me, I just like tinkering with new stuff.  Asterisk is all that's 
available in my price range for installing at home :)

One option is cheap PC/Asterisk connected in some way to the analogue 
system which helps if I know how to configure it etc. as I'll probably 
end up supporting it (our MCSE won't touch anything unless there's a 
control panel applet for it).  OTOH if I say to go for a proprietary 
system I don't have to suport that.. decisions.... :)

.> instead of MSN Messenger with asterisk, then again, find the business
> case that the VoIP hardphone can provide the MSN doesn't. IMHO, I like

Mostly I think it's about the 'physical' thing.  I'm happy with 
messenger, but some won't use it as they don't like headphones, etc. 
They want to dial a number on a real phone.

The business case is about getting the phone bill down... the bean 
counters are screaming that it's a significant drain on the business and 
there's pressure to do something about it (which gets pushed down to the 
little guys like me).

> to allow the other person to ponder the peculiarities and reliability of
> their MS Windows based PC. Whether software or hardware, I figure a VoIP
> phone should be significantly more reliable than a pc soft phone. What
> about when you try to open a large file/db/something while on a call (to
> look up the required information) and your call 'drops' out for a few
> seconds... etc...

I don't think our version of Messenger (4.7.2009) will talk to asterisk. 
  It has the 'accounts' screen but when you try to login it only has the 
one entry box for server not the 3 inc. username/password that other 
sites mention... as I can't enter the details the connection fails 
immediately.  I haven't tried very hard though...  kind of defeats the 
object connecting messenger to asterisk.

> BTW: I don't see why MSN Messenger precludes asterisk... but either way,
> I suppose all this is kinda off-topic and just adding noise ....

AFAIK asterisk can't talk directly to the MSN servers, or have I missed 
that???

Tony